A commentary on the Apocalypse

The Library

_ SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

AT CLAREMONT

_ WEST FOOTHILL AT COLLEGE AVENUE

CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

Vi \ A

COMMENTARY

ON

THE APOCALYPSE.

BY

MOSES STUART,

PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
AT ANDOVER, MASS.

SECOND THOUSAND.

VOLUME I.

NEW-YORK :
VAN NOSTRAND & TERRETT,
123 Fuutton STREET.

1851.

See or emer #
Eulered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by : * 2» a eae 4
as MOSES STUART, t
mes In the Olerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. &
_ ;

a eee th a * ve * ; ai ot i ;

% ap
"Tks, L ibncry ee . Bae

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ree
ATCLAREMONT. ~ as “i
Cali eee

> . . ch | 4

aor

ry * 4
> % °

a
“ie a »
z - Vig ot
, us. § ,
+ » é. , dis P R E F A C E ®
{% vg. re «
te
~ - ®
¥ . + ) if
Tuar the Apocalypse is a book replete with ifficulties, not only for the

common reader but also for the critic and i terpreter, no one will deny
who has earnestly applied himself to the study of it. The sources of dif-
ficulty, in respect to the prophetic part of it, are obvious, and may easily be
‘stated. ‘The book is made up of one continued series of symbols, unae-
companied for the most part by such plain and explicit declarations with |
regard to their ing, as are generally to be found in like cases among
the prophetic writings of the Old Testament. The original and intelligent
readers of this book, beyond all reasonable doubt, could understand the
meaning of the writer; else why should he address his work to them?
Their acquaintance with the circle of things in which he moved, and their
familiarity with the objects to which he refers, superseded the use of all the
critical apparatus which we must now employ. »

Not long, however, after the death of John, the Apocalypse appears to
have been regarded as a wonderful and mysterious book, and to have given
occasion to many strange and very discrepant interpretations. From that
time down to the present, a similar state of things has existed in regard to

the exposition of this work. And even with all the light which recent crit-

ical study has thrown upon the Scriptures in general, there yet remains, as

is esmerclly confessed, not a little of obscurity resting upon the Apocalypse.
Must this state of things always continue? This is a question of great

2 ono f Scripture. Hitherto, scarcely any two original and independent
expositors have been agreed, in respect to some points very important in
their bearing upon the interpretation of the book. So long as the Apoca-
lypse is regarded principally as an epitome of civil and ecclesiastical his-
tory, this must continue to be the case. Different minds will make the ap-
plication of apocalyptic prophecies to different series of events, because
there is something in each to which more or less of these prophecies is
seemingly applicable. Such has always been the case, in past times, when-
ever this method of interpre n has been followed; and why should any-
thing different from this be expected for the future? The consequence
however has of course been, to create a kind of general distrust in the pub-

‘lic mind, with regard to every effort made in order to explain the book in
question. At a period somewhat early, the Apo se was excepted by

IN-349 2S a See a

to those, who believe that the Apocalypse rightfully belongs to the »

iv PREFACE: t

some of the churches from the Canon of books to be publicly read for edi-
fication. And even after this exclusion ceased, it was still practically ab-
stained from, or disregarded, by the great mass of Christians, from a con-
sciousness that they were unable with any certainty to discover its true
meaning, and from want of confidence in the expositions of. it which had
already been given.

Such, I regret to say, is still the state of things extensively, with regard
to the book of Revelation. Practically, the prophetic parts of it are almost,
if not entirely, excluded from the Scriptures. In spite of all which those

. recent interpreters have done, who find in it an epitomized civil and eccle-
siastical history of ages remote from the time when it was written, confi-
dence in their expositions has been, and is, generally withheld. As itseems
to me, it must still continue to be withheld, so long as this method of in-
terpretation is pursued,

But is it necessary that this method should be still pursued, and thus the

book be virtually lost to the churches? I would hope not. The Apoca-
lypse certainly brestles a precious, yea a-most noble Christian spirit. In-
deed there are few, if any, of the books in the New Testamcdiiiiich are
better adapted to animate and foster the spirit of primitive Christiani oe :
this, when it is rightly understood. It is the belief of this, which odin
ced me to bestow so much time and pains as the present work has cost me,
upon the exposition of it,
r _ The ground on which I stand, or at least on which I aim to stand, is the
same that I would occupy, in case I should endeavour to prepare myself
for the interpretation of any or all other books of Scripture. I take it for
granted, that the writer had a present and immediate object in view, when
he w the book; and of course I must regard him as having spoken in-
telli F Siapee whom he addressed. In order to find out his meaning, I

_haye endeavoured to resort, as I would in all other cases, to the idiom ; to

_ the times e which the author lived ; to the events then passing or speedily
about to take place; to the circumstances in which he and his readers were
placed, and which called forth his work ; to the adaptation of the book to
these circumstances ; and (in a word) t@ all that is local and belongs to the
times in which it was written, whether it be peculiarities in the mode of
expression, thought, reasoning, or feeling, or anything else which would in-
fluence an author’s style or manner of arranging his composition. My aim
has been to abide by this method of interpretation, throughout. the work.
At the same time I have never forgotten, that the author is virtually a poet
also a prophet; for my belief is, that he is truly both, and therefore I

aye aimed never to lose sight of either character. | now these principles
of interpretation, which I have admitted, and by ae I have invariably
designed to be guided—principles from which, no one can swerve without
the certainty of ornggieeif these are not right and just and well established,
\

+

eee Fy eee ee Oe ee © een ohh wo aa ee I aes y ON GE
a oe ee ae

PREFACE. v

“then I have only to say, that I have hitherto Wholly mistaken the science of
interpretation, and have yet to learn its first and constituent elements.

I am aware that such as have become attached to the methods of inter-
preting the Apocalypse that are most current in the English an‘ American
churches, will probably, at least at first view, disagree with some of my re-
sults. I will not find fault with them for this; but they will allow me to
entreat them to have patience with me, and not to decide at once on dif_i-
cult points, but to make the book of the Revelation a subject of thorough
and often repeated study. My own views, I mean such as I once had, have
been changed by such a course. When I began my official duties in my
present station, I had no other knowledge of the book, than what the read-
ing of bishop Newton on the Prophecies, and of others who were of the
like cast, had imparted to me. The Classes of Pupils under my instruction
soon began to importune me to give them some information respecting the
Apocalypse. I commenced the study of it, with a design to comply with
their request. I soon found myself, however, in pursuing the way of regu-
lar inter ion as applied to other books of Scripture, completely hedged
in; md at the same time that to pursue my former method of inter-
pretin the book, would cast me inevitably upon the boundless ocean of
mere De secsunea exposition. I frankly told my Pupils, therefore, that I knew

nothing respecting the hook which could profit them, and that I could not
attempt to lecture upon it. After still further examination, I came to a re-
solution, not to attempt the exegesis of the Apocalypse, until a period of ten
years had elapsed, which should be devoted, so far as my other duties would
permit, to the study of the Hebrew prophets. I kept my resolution. After
this period had passed, I began, with much caution, to say a few things, in
the Lecture-room, respecting the book in question. Every three years,
these Lectures, such as they were, I repeated, with some additions and al-
terations. — In process of time I began to go through the whole book. This —
I have done several times; and the present work is the result of these often
repeated and long continued labours.

I do not give this history of my undertaking, with a view to recommend
my work to the confidence of the Christian public. It must stand or fall
by its own merits. What I have now said, has been said rather in the way
of apology for having engaged in an undertaking so hazardous as that of
writing and publishing a Commentary on the Revelation. I have been led
along “a by step to my present position, without having originally designed
to publish anything at all concerning the Apocalypse. /

It will naturally be expected + at I should state a few things, in regard to”
the plan and manner of my work. m

Most of the Inrrovuctron, although arranged first in order, and first

ted, was composed after the Commentary was completed. An obvious
reason for this, was the necessity of the knowledge acquired by exegesis, in
order to compose with any propriety the introductory part of the work.

Ge

~

Ws. PREFACE.,

» My reasons for saying so much as I have respecting apochryphal Apoca-
lypses, are given ih their appropriate place, and I hope they may satisfy my

well be over-estimated. :

eaders,. The value of these auxiliaries to exegesis and illustration, cannot
<.
oe

By far the severest task which I have had to perform, has been that of
discussing the objections against the apostolic origin of the Revelation,
drawn from the style, manner, and diction of the book, and from the doc-
trines which it contains. This has cost me more time and labour than the
composition of the whole commentary. To state particularly the grounds:
and reasons of this, would be inapposite here. I will merely say, that those
who haye never performed such a task, cannot well have any adequate con-
ception of it. It is literally true, that in some cases the results of a month’s
labour, or even more, occupy only a page or two, as exhibited by me. _How-
ever, there is some comfort in the reflection, that what is established by -
appeal to facts, cannot well or speedily be overthrown.

_ My design has been to compose.a work which should aid, in a particu-
lar manner, the young interpreter, and also that class of readers, who, al-
though more advanced in life, have not enjoyed the requisite facilities ar
advantages for the more thorough exegetical study of the Scriptures.
this ground I have not felt at liberty to imitate the extreme brevi
compression of some distinguished recent interpreters in Germany ; e. g.
De Wette in his Exegetical Manual for the N. Testament, and Knobel in his
Exegetical Manual for Isaiah. Such books are designed mainly for those
already well versed in the business of interpretation. They are very ap-
opriate and desirable in their place, and within the sphere in which they
ed to circulate. But much of my design, in. the present case,
been defeated by sucha tathod of composition. I have sought
ner, by laying before him, and explaining, so far as In my
1atical phenomena of every kind, peculiarities of idiom, pe-
entertained in ancient times and specially by the Hebrew na-

tion, and generally whatever might contribute to lead him to a right and

full understanding of the author. On this ground, I have occasionally ad-
mitted, into. the body of the commentary, discussions or monograms on
subjects. particularly obscure and difficult, e. g. on the two , Rev.
11:33 .0n Gog and Magog, 20: 8, etc. In other cases, avhere m ample
space and time were requisite for discussion in order to illustrate or con-
firm anything which the text presents to view or to which it adverts, I have
remitted the discussion to the end of the volume, a
into the form of an Excursus. If I am not tami

ave thrown it there
own views and

judgment, most readers will feel as much interé e which
the Excursus exhibit, as they will in ed of n ich is contained
in the body of the work itself. It is impossible to do any a quate justice

_ to such a difficult book as the Apocalypse, without pursuing a ‘course sub-

stantially. like to this, ~ ~

4

a ae

PREFACE. ix

unable to perform any mental labour. What I could do in such a state, in
the. way of correction, I have done. But there are portions of my work
that I should have compressed, had it been possible for me to do it. There
may be also some incongruities, at least in some things of minor impor-
tance, that have escaped me, while in such a state. The reader who feels
‘Kindly, will be disposed to put the best construction upon them that he
can. I regret more than he can 1 do, that i am obliged to make such an
apology. But it is my duty to bow in submission to Him, who directs all
things according to the counsel of his own will.

There may be some who will think, that under these disadvantages I
ought not to have ventured on the publication of my work. It may be/so;
but I sought the best counsel I could obtain, and have acted in conformity
with it. Ifthe work were to be published at all, (and the public had been
given to understand, by some well-meaning but rather unwary friends, that
it would be), it was best that it should be accomplished so far as it might
be, while I could keep my eye upon it. I had much ? to expect,
that the time in which I could do this would not be lo
And n s a kind Providence has spared my life to see the completion
pri » what am I to hope for, or to expect, from the publication of

nk: a st ’

ope for a patient hearing. I hope that the bcos of the work will
make a thorough examination. of the whole matter, before they decide that I
am in the wrong. I hope that all, who have never made the Hebrew pro-
phets and the figurative and symbolical representations of the Scriptures a
subject of special study and investigation, will be slow and cautious in de-
ciding what meaning should be attached to the symbols of the Ap
I hope that a lively fancy, or an oma in guessing, will not b
ered as the best helps to the exegesis -of such a book. Hearti
the mummery, and knavery, and superstition, and pollution, so W
shail church; and much as I disapprove of all its hiera
tions, still hope that a mere spirit of opposition ) Papal abomin

not be regarded as the proper and authorized exponent of what tome has
said respecting the beast and the false prophet. I hope that in respect to
this as well as other matters of difficulty in the Apocalypse, my readers will
not mee ny expositions, merely with the accusation of departure from opin-
ions lo wrent in the English and American churches. The proper
question is not, whether I haye broached any opinions which seem new or
strange to this reader or to < whether what I have said will abide the
test of a hermeneutical t that such readers as have been led
merely or principa RE alley interpretations of former days which
they have perus feel that they are adequately prepared to pro-
nounce ‘- i | Sentence of condemnation at once on the views
which Ihave advanced. I hope, also, i in case they do, that I shall be ena-

bled to bear with a ecad degree of equanimity the censure of judges, either
A “

*

%

>

4

ae

x PREFACE.

few or many, who possess no other qualifications than these to decide upon

such matters. Ready as poltig: may be to condemn, I must still cherish the

hope that due allowances will be made by most readers, for the great diffi-

culties which I have had to encounter, in the exposition of such a book as

“the Apocalypse. That errors may be found in “my work, I do not question.
To err is human. I claim no exemption from the common frailty, and only

hope that I may be forgiven, where my errors are discovered. Iam con-
scious of no party-purposes in publishing my work. Ihave sought for truth
earnestly and sincerely on the present occasion, if I ever did or could do
so; and where I have failed to obtain it, I hope the mantle of charity and
kindness will be thrown over my failures. If the reader of my work gets
any assistance from it, which will help him better to understand the Scrip-
tures in any respect, he will be disposed to deal gently with me as to things
ich he cannot approves with whieh a

he cannotyagres..
As to what I expect ; i anticipation

] re not ¢ 1 sanguine or overween-
ing east. I know that after so long a period, in which darkness has brood-
ed over this book, it is not the work of one man, or even of one on to
arrive at establisl d conclusions in all matters that pertain to the Apoca-
lypse, Consequently I do not expect that my work will complete this task.
But I do expect, at st I hope, t that if it should accomplish nothing more,
it may be the means of exciting more attention to the book of Revelation, -
and of calling forth some new and more successful efforts for its nae
tation. Should wh: I have written be the means of calling forth li
else but animated opposition, there is hope, even in this, of arriving sooner
or later at something better “than we have hitherto obtained. Should it
serve, in any good measure, to give somewhat of a new direction m our
churehes to the method of studying the book, this may lead on to some im-
peat results, and I shall not have written i in vain.

nd now with a trembling hand and a heart full of solicitude, I commit

oahis work to the churches, and to the Great Head of them. Whatever im-

-perfections it has, itis still the result of an effort to vindicate the wounded
honour of the Ap lypse, and to render the book once more, in all its
parts, intelligible and useful and edifying t well-meaning readers. ~
haps I cannot reasonably expect: to live Jon enough to vindicate such por-
tions of my work as may be assailed ; but so far as probability and teuth
are on my side, there are others whan see that ach is the case, and
who will so far defend what I have advanced <¥

Beyond this, I would hope for no defence. My only wish is, that the
pbnreigee may sooner or later come to regard the po sy in question in the
ie manner as its primitive readers regarded i oa - once

more be placed before the churches in the — itd ‘mg
originally designed to pl;

i * et OM. ‘st
Theological a ) he. ee.

Andover, Feb. 1845, § me we
* " z

*

¥
’ +
¥ *
» we
Pi” ‘
Sr
# ¥ Page
§ 1. General Remarks ]* - : 9
§ 2. Comparison of the Apocalypse wih wie ir piral prophe-

cies : é : il
§ 3. Are similar views to i aa among the er : * 26

§ 4. — of the apocalyptic style, at the t when - e.
pocalypse wa posed. . _—" 31

§5. Apocryp! Apocalypses which have re ms = 37
§ 6, Apocryphal Revelations still extant . - , oo. ; : 40

(2) The Ascension of Isaiah . ail 40 (f) pipe Shepherd of Hermas 4 113

(6) The book ofEnoch . . a e apocryphal Apocalypse —
(¢) Fourth book of Ezra. . ie). of Jo tn dian 122
_ (d) Sibylline Oracles eG a (i)! General Re arks on all these
(e). ‘Testament of the twelve Pa- - compositio e 124
triarchs. * iy ager Se ee ti

°* Peculiar sempiaceystt of the Apocalypse : e) thet
; N umerosity : 22 ~~

(2) Trichotomy . ..- . 131 (e) Decades. vibration: a ae
(6) Heptades’ . °. .. . 144 ® Parallelisms “2. a 47
(c) Groupsoffour . . . be (g) Gerendly Remarks on "ihe
(d) Groups of twelve : 46 | rosity” fo eS 149
§ 8. Is the Apocalypse a er ‘ it * . Ft
§9. Object of the book . y . Me : fie

§ 10. Economy of the Apocalypse, or manner of devoliiiing the
§ 11. Aesthetical character of the Apocalypse oP yee - ;
2. Hermeneutical principles applicable to the Apocalypse « si vss
Eo inal re 3 of the Apocalypse, and thelgap tence s.. 216
ori language of the. Apocalypse a ig 228

§ Peculiar characteristics of age and style e Apocalype 232
‘ Place and cakes ing cia - 257

» ° 283 -
AL oe yes un favour the apostle John.
288| (7) Of Apollonius sai. 4 aes
300] (8) Phe Baas é b 313
302} (9) 7 sails of Vienne and
30 316
te (10) Clement o lexandria « ueld
312 ti) Of Tame an eerie 23'S

4

“ag

cd

CONTENTS TO VOL. I.

xii
(12) Other early witnesses . 320 | (23) Of Epiphanius 328
(13) Of ippoly tuts 321 | (24) Of Basil 329
(14) Of Origen” a: 322 | (25) Of Gregory Nazianzen 329
(15) Of Nepos andi acion . 324/ (26) Of Chrysostom. 330
(16) Of Cy, . 824] (27) Of Ambrose and others 331
(17) Of Vic inu s Fe eos) 4f pan, ae of Bong 2,
(18) Of Methodius} ..1)1) 4 ‘B25 (2% F 331
(19) Of Lactantius . . . 326 (29) OF Abdustine ‘ 332,
(2) Of Athanasius . . . 326/ (30) Of Jerome Pe hi 332
21) Of Ephrem & ses is a aed Gl) Later testimonies . 334
(22) Of Hilary . sme nes
II. Alleged testimony against John as the author.
(1) Opposition by the Alogi. 336| (4) Doubts of Eusebius . 304
: (2) By Caius the Presbyter . 339] (5) Of later writers 307
* (3) By i aie of Alexan- (6) Omitted in the Old d Syriac
dria 344 Version . 365
§ 18. Result of historical testimony — . 3 . 368
§ 19. Indirect and internal Pr idosice a, ainst apostolic origin: Gene-
= P S a
val Remarks 4 : ) ae ‘ 371
§ 20. Principles which should shitde us in judging the iyi? edt .
diction ; 3 a : 374
. Examination of particular sieeve dedtedatrom the diction,
style, and manner of the Apocalypse ; é inlet 26
Also from the doctrines and modes of thought , : a fave
§ 22. Internal evideticetin favour of the apostle Jobn as author Ss teaaplec. 11159
§23. REsuntT . 4s a ee
§24. Examination of the itary of iachbebip by Schott snl Liieke 422
(25, Umely of the Book. a Gaweer | lC 427
§ 26. Etouicel rank and credit . : , : i ~ © 437
tch of the Exegesis of ae ae = 2 - 450
es, the J ocalypse intended for the use of the church in 427
every age? . : " . ‘ : ~ 475
I loes the plan of the ro eens anachronism? . s: | 484
oF : APPENDIX,

2 Extracts from the Commentary of Victorinus ~ : «= A9l
Specimen of the Ascension of Isaiah a . . -, wae
Specimens of the book of Enoch : — Ni, ane)

* 4 aa

» . .
CT al 7
a e
#
~ * - + a Ps
x" ae © v3 a ay s

i +h 3 * f r i! : :

om n ‘

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 25

The obvious meaning is, that the heathen on all sides shall come and
participate in the blessings of the gospel.*

(41) In Matt. 28:19, 20. Mark 16:15, the disciples of Jesus are
commanded to go and teach all nations, to go and preach the gospel to
every creature.

(42) John 3:16, 17, tells us, that God so loved the world, as to give
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him should not perish,
but have everlasting life; and that God sent his Son, in order that the
world through him might be saved.

(43) In John 10: 16 we are told by the Saviour, that he has other
sheep which are not of the Jewish fold; that they must hear his voice ;
and that there will be one fold and one Shepherd.

(44) In John 12: 382 it is said, that when Jesus is lifted up, he will
draw all men unto him.

(45) John 17: 20, 21. Jesus prays not for his disciples only, but for
all who would believe on him through their word, that they all might be
one.

(46) In Acts 1:8, the apostles are told by the Saviour, that they
should be witnesses for him, not only in Judea and Samaria, but in the
uttermost parts of the earth.

(47) In Acts 10: 34, 35, Peter declares, after a divine vision so in-
structing him, that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation
he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him.

(48) In Acts 15: 16, 17, James declares, that according to ancient
prophecy, the tabernacle of David is to be again built, that the residue
of men... and all the Gentiles might seek after the Lord.

(49) Acts 17:30. God now commands all men, everywhere, to re-
pent. ;

(50) Acts 28:28. The salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and
they will listen to it.

(51) In the epistle to the Romans, the fact that salvation belongs
equally to the Jews and Gentiles is one of the main themes of discus-
sion. Comp. 1: 18—16. 3: 29,30. 4:16, 17. 5: 18—21. 10: 11—21.
In chap. 11: 25—32 are most specific declarations, that the Jews, with
the fulness of the Gentiles, will be brought in, and so all Israel shall be '
saved, Here is the germ of the whole Apocalypse, or at least the same
kind of germ as that from which the Apocalypse sprung.

(52) Everywhere, in Paul, the like sentiments are to be found. It
would be superfluous to cite them. Let the reader compare Gal. 3:
7—9, also vs. 22—29. Eph. 1:10. 2: 11—22, which is very full and

* | have purposely omitted Matt. xxiv. here; because | have, in the sequel, |
drawn it and the parallel passages in the other Evangelists more particularly into
comparison with the Apocalypse.

VOL. I. 4

26 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS

express. See also Heb. 8: 8—13. Many other places of the like tenor
might easily be quoted.

(53) In 1 John 2: 2, he will find the beloved disciple echoing the sen-
timents of his Lord and Master, by declaring that Jesus Christ is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and again (4: 14), that the
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Many of the texts in the New Testament, to which I have now re-
ferred, do not indeed directly assert the universality of the actual spread
of the Gospel, but only the universality of its design. But that it will
ultimately be made to accomplish its design, yea, that it will fully ac-
complish it, who that confides in the promises of the Saviour will ven-
ture to doubt ?

We have then here the same idea everywhere presented, as that which
forms the basis of the Apocalypse, viz. the wniversality of the Christian
religion, and of course its final triumph over all the spirits of error and
all the powers of darkness. As this idea evidently pervades the plan of
redemption, so it also pervades the Scriptures which have revealed that
plan. The benevolence of God stands pledged for the accomplishment
of it.

§ 3. Are views similar to these to be found among the heathen ?.

We may answer this question in the affirmative, or in the negative,
according to the sense which we assign to the word similar, contained in
the title of this section. If we mean to ask: Whether a Messiah, a Sa-
viour of men from the power and penalty of sin by the offering up of
his own body as an expiatory sacrifice, and thus procuring eternal re-
demption for sinful men, has been proclaimed by the heathen ; whether
the pure, spiritual, holy, catholic religion taught by him, and designed to be
spread among all nations in order to make them converts, and also to
produce its full influence upon them, has been published by the unen-
lightened heathen ; then the answer is plain. The Gospel, as contain-
ed in the Scriptures, old and new, but specially in the new—the Gospel
only makes such disclosures as these. The wisdom of God, as exhibi-
ted in this, was “hidden from ages and from generations ;” so that “the
world by wisdom knew not God.” There is nothing among all the de-
velopments of unenlightened heathen, which has any tolerably strict
resemblance to the highly important truths that have just been men-
tioned.

But our inquiry may well be modified so as to express a view of this
subject which is more generic. We may refer, in our question, to the
simple wish or hope of future deliverance from evils such as the present
to which our race are exposed; and then we may answer in the affirma-

* OF A MILLENNIAL STATE. ys

tive, at least to a certain extent and within limits which are of a some-
what moderate compass. '
There is in the breast of man a consciousness of dependence and of
ill desert, accompanied by a desire to propitiate the Being, or those Su-
perior Powers, on whom he feels himself to be dependent, and whom he
believes himself to have offended. Witness the expiatory sacrifices, the
penances, and all the ascetic rites and usages to which the heathen
world have in some form or other resorted. Every man of thought and
reflection is conscious of his own weakness and woes, and conscious also
that-he is capable of enjoying something higher and nobler than that
which he now possesses and enjoys; he therefore naturally, as a rational
being made in the image of God, looks forward with hope to something
better than what he now possesses. Evils are pressing constantly upon
him. From the moment in which he opens his eyes upon life to that in
which he closes them in death, they do not cease to urge him. To pain,
sickness, pestilence, hunger, thirst, the inclemency of the elements, the
changes of seasons, storms, tempests, earthquakes—to the loss of friends
and of estate, yea to innumerable other woes from without, he must be
continually exposed in his present state. From within his sufferings are
not less. His immortal mind is so connected with his bodily frame, that
almost every evil which assails the latter, must also affect the former.
And besides; what a mass of inconsistencies does he find within himself!
So much wisdom linked with so much folly ; so much consideration
joined to so much rashness ; such exalted conceptions followed by such
low and groveling desires ; such lofty aspirations after something purer
and more satisfactory to the nature of the soul, and yet quickly followed
by a retinue of appetites that may degrade him below the brutes which
perish! What a mystery, what an inexplicable enigma, is man when
viewed merely in such a light!
ere have been minds in every age and nation, which have reflected

ol subjects such as these, and have, as it were instinctively, been led to
indulge hopes or expectations of deliverance at some future period, from
a condition in which: such things must be suffered. But without light
from. above, specially in regard to the mode and time of deliverance, re-
demption from such evils could scarcely be regarded as attainable; and
all that could be argued in favour of believing in it was, that the benevo-
lence of the Godhead and the nature of man seem to require it. It would
follow, of course, that where the light of revelation had not been shed, con-
jecture in relation to this great subject would move in various directions,
and be guided very much by the circumstances of the individual who
indulged it.

As an example, however, of the manner in which the hopes or wishes
of a heathen could be expressed, in regard to some future deliverance

SE

28 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS

from the evils of the present world, we may appeal to the fourth Eclogue
of Virgil, inscribed to the consul Pollio ; specially to the passage which
begins thus:

Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas ;
Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo; etc.

The passage is too familiar to need further quotation or description.
That Virgil has here copied from the ancient Cumaean Sibyl, and that
the composition before us contains a real Messianic prediction, is an
opinion at least as old as Lactantius (Instt. Vik, and. Constantine the
Great (Orat. ad Sanct. in Euseb. Vita Constant. c. 19). In recent times,
Chandler, Whiston, Cudworth, and many others, have been he like
persuasion ; and even Bishop Lowth (Lect. XXI. on Hebrew Poetry)
seems hardly able to refrain from the belief of a divine inspiration in
this beautiful piece of composition. I cannot but observe, however, that
it lies on the face of Virgil’s whole representation, that his poetic hopes
were limited merely to civil and social prosperity and happiness. How
different the whole tenor of this is, from the view presented by the
Apocalypse where all is moral and Christian, no sensible reader needs
to be informed.

But we may go further back than Virgil, and find among some remote-
oriental nations the idea of a general ezoxatdoracig. The books of
Zoroaster, so long spoken of by Greek, Roman, and Christian writers,
before and after-the birth of Christ, but known to them only by report,
have at last been in. part rescued from their obscurity and brought be-
fore the world, in a translation by Anquetil du Perron of the last gene-
ration. Zoroaster, the far-famed author of these books, written in the
Zend language, i. e. the language of ancient Media, in all probability
flourished about the middle of the 6th century before Christ, a little be-
fore, or during, the reign of Darius Hystaspes. The sum of his éoxa-
taotacts, as exhibited in the Zend Avesta, and in the Bun Dehesh,
which is a commentary on it written some 1100 or 1200 years ago, I
will briefly state in a note, for the satisfaction of the reader.*

* Before all things existed Zeruane kerene, i.e. Time without Limits, or endless
eternity (ewige Ewigkeit, as Kleuker translates it). This infinite Being produced
two others, Ahriman and Oromasd. Both were good at first; but Ahriman fell
from his primitive holy state, and became essentially malignant. The Supreme
Being assigned to these two beings, who after the fall of Ahriman became rivals
and enemies of each other, a cycle of 12,000 years in which they were to act.
The first 3000 was assigned exclusively to Oromasd or Ormusd for predomi-
nance; and in this period he created Feruers, i. e. the essences (like the Platonic
idsow) of all beings. During the second 3000 years, Oromasd was employed in
creating all that is good, and: Ahriman (in opposition to him) in creating all that
is bad. When Ormusd at length brought the race of man into existence, Ahri-
man, and the evil angels and genii whom he had created, entered into contest

OF A MILLENNIAL STATE. 99

It would lead me aside from my present object, to dwell on the points
of resemblance between Zoroaster’s scheme of religion and that exhibit-
ed particularly in the latter part ‘of the Apocalypse. It’must be admit-
ted that there are some striking points of resemblance ; and some there
are, also, of difference equally striking. That Zoroaster makes his czo-
narceracis universal and complete, springs necessarily from the nature.
of his Dualism, and from the promise of Time without Limits to Ormusd,
at the commencement of the great cycle, that his triumph should at last
be certain and complete. John, in the Apocalypse, presents us with a
view of the final condition of the beast and false prophet, together with
Satan and his adherents, which. is very different. The second death
which they are sentenced to undergo, admits of no restoration. If the
writer of the Apocalypse knew anything of the doctrines of the Zend-
Avesta, (which has of late been strenuously asserted), he has at least
taken the liberty often and widely to depart from them.* But still, must
we say now that the author of the Apocalypse has, in common with the
heathen, merely adorned a general principle which is spontaneous as it
were to our nature, by inventing a sublime and beautiful allegory for
this purpose? The attentive and judicious reader will hardly say this.
The difference between the moral hue of the Apocalypse, and that of
all the heathen fables which bear any general resemblance to parts of it,
is exceedingly great, and lies indeed upon the very face of the book.

It may not be out of place here to remark, that it is no objection to
the doctrine of one only living and true God as taught in the Scriptures,
that many of the heathen had exalted conceptions of the Divinity, which

with Ormusd and his good angels and genii; the first aiming to corrupt and de-
stroy everything good, the last striving to defend and preserve it. This contest
continued in a doubtful state for the third period of 3000 years, sometimes Or-
musd and sometimes Ahriman prevailing. During the fourth’ or last period of
3000 years, Ahriman is to have the predominance, although opposition to him on
EE part of Ormusd and all good beings is never to cease. At the end of this
period, when the great cycle is completed, comes the general a&roxardoracs.
The dead are all to be raised and brought to judgment. The earth is to be burn-
ed up, and thus to be purified from all the remains of evil which Ahriman and
his agents had mingled with it. A new heavens and a new earth is to come
forth from this conflagration of the old. The wicked, who had been the adhe-
rents and followers of Ahriman, are to be punished in a dreadful manner, along
with him, until finally all will become penitent, and the triumph of Ormusd be
universal and complete.

* The reader of the Classics, who has so often found in them descriptions or
references to the four ages, will naturally be led to inquire, whether there is not
some close affinity, as to origin, between them and the four great periods of Zoro-
aster. Many resemblances may easily be found. The great period, moreover, of
the 12,000 years—may not this correspond with Virgil's magni menses in Ec. LV,
and with the magnus annus of Servius, who comments on the passage in Virgil?
More light will yet be thrown on some of these matters.

&

80 COMPARISON WITH HEATHEN PREDICTIONS.

in some respects approached very near to those in the Bible. It is no
objection to seriptwral morality, that. Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Plu-
tarch, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and many others, cherished not a few
right notions respecting morality. Nor is it any proof against the in-
spiration of the Scriptures, that many doctrines of naiutel, theology, (so
to speak), are assumed by the sacred writers, instead of being formally
proved by them, or established by mere dint of authority. Even the
existence of the Godhead itself is eee ed, and nowhere de-_
monstrated by argument.
Why may we not say, then, that the top her
made sure the poet the hope: that the reign of sin and

is not to be conseiaién as ibd and pire a natural principle of ‘he hu-
man heart adorned by ingenious fiction, and presented as such in this
book because such hope is congenial with our nature? That it is con-
genial, may be fully conceded. But from the very fact, that there is
such a principle implanted in our breasts, I would argue, that the great
Author of our nature has caused such a book as the Apocalypse to be
written ; for by it the wants which spring from the natural desire of de-
liverance from evil may be fully satisfied. The book now presents a
consolation the need of which we feel. Itis adapted to our case. And —
how can this be turned into a legitimate argument against its high ori-
gin and authority ?

.From a survey of the Scriptures in general, and of some prevalent
views in the heathen world, we now venture to say, that John has not
produced, in the Apocalypse, any important doctrme which is wholly
new or strange, and therefore incredible. His book cannot be rejected
on such a ground, by.any intelligent or candid reader.. The world was
filled with hopes, more or less distinct, of a nature like to those encour-
aged and rendered sure by the Apocalypse, at the time when this book
was written. It was doubtless no matter of surprise to the Christians
who were contemporary with the author, to find in the Revelation the
leading truths which it inculeates. Ages and generations had hoped and
sighed for deliverance from sin and sorrow. The work of John opened
and made bright the prospect of realizing what had so long been desi-
red. His style and manner, the costume ‘of his book, many rt his sym-
bols, his plan and mode of development, were in some respects new,
certainly very striking. But the churches of early times do not seem to
have thought that the Revelation was either so peculiar or so obscure,
that it ought to be rejected from a place among the sacred books. When
modern critics have thought and reasoned in this way, have they not
displayed some want of proper attention to the history of opinions that
belong to the early ages of Christianity ?

APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 81

§ 4. Estimation in which the apocalyptic style of prophecy was held, at
the time when the Revelation was composed.

Whoever reads with care the prophecies of the Old Testament re-
specting the Messianic reign, and the future prosperity and glory of the
church—such as have been offered to the view of the reader in a pre-
ceding section of this can searcely fail to observe how gradually
the manner * them is ed, while the matter or substantial basis of
them remain ‘ Nothing can be more general and brief
than the REE fei “ The seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent’s head.” “Shiloh shall come, and unto him the gathering of
the people shall be.” “In Abraham’s seed, shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed.” ‘Who the individual deliverer was to be; what
his office or condition ; when or where he should make his appearance ;
by what means he was to become a blessing to all nations as well as to
the Jews; all:these and other things of a similar nature were held as
yet in reserve. It was only down so late as the time of David, when
the intimation was plainly given, that the expected Deliverer and King
would spring from his progeny. ‘David, therefore, in prophetic antici-
pation of what was to take place, exhibited him before the public eye as
an all-powerful King, an irresistible Conqueror, whose reign would be
universal, and fill the earth with blessings. Other writers, of the same
age and of succeeding times, animated with the like spirit, re-echoed the
strains of this immortal bard, and widely proclaimed the victories of the
King of kings and Lord of lords. The 45th Psalm, the ninth chapter
of Isaiah, and other pieces of the like tenor, are striking examples of
what I have just stated.

Among all the earlier prophetic annunciations respecting the future
kieGdom of heaven, however, none are to be found where symbol is em-
ployed in the manner in which Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and the au-
thor of the Apocalypse employ it. Jigurative language is, indeed,
everywhere employed. From the very nature of the case, this was ab-
solutely necessary ; for how could an attractive picture of things in the
distant future be ep without borrowing the costume of the age in

which the prophetic a ‘thor wrote? How could he form a picture both
animated and striking, unless he addressed the imagination and fancy
through the medium of imagery or tropical language? The second
Psalm, the 45th Psalm, and most of the predictions in Isaiah, are nota-
ble examples of what I here mean to designate. No part of the Scrip-
tures is more full of trope and imagery than these Messianic composi-
tions; none requires more rhetorical discrimination and taste, in order
to make a correct interpretation.

ae

32 APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY.

But with all this abundance of metaphor and animated imagery, how
different still is the manner of these predictions, from the general tenor
of those contained: in the book of Ezekiel, el, and Zechariah! I
do not now speak merely of the Messianic predictions in these books,
but of the general manner of the entire compositions of these prophets.
From the time of the captivity downwards, the taste of the Hebrew
writers in. general seems to have undergone a great change. I know of
nothing more dissimilar in respect to style and method, than Isaiah, for
example, on the one side, and Ezekiel, Dar 1, Zechariah, Haggai, and
Malachi, on the other. Jeremiah is an example of a kind of interme-
diate tone between the two. But he was educated in Palestine, and
spent most of his life there. His style exhibits some points of surpass-
ing excellence, in regard to which he has not been outdone by any wri-
ter, perhaps never equalled. But his writings afford us only a few ex-
amples of the symbolic method of representation; such as those of the
linen girdle, chap. xiii; the potter and his marred work, chap. xviii;
the potter’s earthen bottle, chap. xix; the two. baskets of figs, chap. xxiv;
and the bonds and yoke put on his neck, chap. xxvii. In Isaiah, I find
but a single instance of a similar nature; (unless indeed we add to this
the representation in chap. viii.) This is in chap. xx, where the pro-
phet is commanded “to walk naked and barefoot for the space of three
years.” I do not understand this, however, as anything more than an
emblematic picture exhibited indeed in language, but not literally carried
through in action. Still, in its nature it is symbolic. In the same man-
ner I understand the symbolic transaction exhibited in Hosea i, ii.
Amos has one example of symbol also, in chap. viii, viz. a basket of
summer fruit.

Let the reader pass now from an attentive examination of these early
prophets, to the careful perusal of those who wrote during and after the
Babylonish exile. Ezekiel, from beginning to end, is almost an unbro-
ken series of symbolical representation. His preaching or prophesying
stands, in almost every case, connected intimately with representations
of such a nature.

The book of Daniel is, if we except a little of it which is occupied
with historic narrative, nothing but symbol from beginning to end.
Dreams, visions, sensible representations, in which that is acted out, in
view of the prophet, which he is to record as a prediction, constitute the
whole of his prophecies. In these respects, he is the exemplar of the
Apocalypse, whose author, although indeed no imitator in a servile sense
of any other writer, would seem still to have given a decided preference
to Daniel’s method of representation above that of other prophets.

The book of Zechariah, again, is one continuous strain of symbols,
until we reach chap. vii; this, with chap. viii, resembles very much the

APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 35

manner of Hageai and Malachi, his contemporaries. From the 9th chap.
to the end, the strain is indeed diverse ; so much so, that critics have
been and are still divided in opinion, whether this portion of the book
belongs to the same author who wrote the first half of the book. -With-
out entering into this dispute, I would merely remark, that the subject
of the last part of the book is so very diverse from that of the first, that
we might reasonably expect a different mode of treating it. But, with
all the diversity between chap. ix—xiy. and the rest of the book, still
with a notable example of. teaching by the use of
symbol ; as marked, indeed, as any in the preceding part of the book.

In hee compositions of Haggai and Malachi, symbol does not oc-
cur; but both of their books are merely hortatory or admonitory, rather
than predictions respecting the future.

Here then are plain and palpable facts before us. A great change
took place in the prophetic style and method, from and after the date of
the Jewish captivity. Jeremiah presents this matter to us, in its tran-
sition-state ; which is what we might naturally expect. Ezekiel, who is
carried into a foreign country when young, fully adopts the method of
the prophets during and after the exile. The taste for this mode of
writing, introduced by such men as Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah,
seems to have been widely diffused among the Jews everywhere, and to
have come down, with augmented sway, to the apostolic age and the
times which immediately sueceeded it. This we shall have abundant
opportunity to see, in the sequel. |

In whatever way so great a change in the style of composition was
‘ brought about among the Jewish prophets, yet the fact itself admits of
no denial or concealment. The taste of writers and readers certainly
underwent a great revolution. Did the influence of the Chaldees upon
the Jews effect this? Or is it one of those things which supervene so
gradually, that a specific cause can hardly be assigned for it? Is it, for
example, like the change in English style and taste, since the days of
Addison, Steele, and Pope?

That theory of inspiration which makes men mere machines while un-
der its influence, responding to the touch of an invisible hand, as the lyre
does to the touch of its master, can hardly find admission here. Accord-
ing to this account of prophecy, here was in all respects the same author,
who guided Isaiah, and Hosea, and Amos, and Joel, and Micah. But
nothing can be more diverse than the manner in which he spoke by
them, and that in which he spoke during and after the exile. Can we
venture to suggest, that the taste of the divine Author himself became
changed in the course of time, in order that we may account for the
phenomenon before us? The bare suggestion of such a thing makes us
instinctively revolt from it. Shall we not say, then, as Paul does, that

VOL. I. 5

34 APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY.

9

“the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets ;’” and inasmuch as
this is so, all the indiyidualities of characte h age, and in each
particular prophet, are of course fully devel f Jacts may be per-
mitted to bear testimony on this occasion, (: not?) we must say,
that the latter supposition is probably true. ersities greater, more
“specific, more easily pointed out, and more characteristic of difference in
taste and cultivation, exist nowhere among Greek, Roman, or English
writers, than exist among the writers ‘of the Old Testament prophecies.

Tf one wanted proof of the almost self-eviden maxim, that when God
speaks to men he speaks more humano, he might find it in the facts before
us. Why does Ezekiel differ so much from Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and
others of an earlier age? Because, I would answer, his own personal
taste, and that of others whom he addresses, was exceedingly different
from the taste of former times. It matters not from what cause this dif-
ference sprung. As a fact it stands out in relief before us; and we pro-
ceed in a correct manner, therefore, when we attribute to it all the in-
fluence that it would naturally have.

The question is of little or no moment here, which of the two methods
of writing now under consideration, is rhetorically to be preferred. In
the West, no doubt Isaiah would bear away the palm. But there is an
East as well as a West, in.a world so large as ours; and there cannot
be a shadow of doubt, that Ezekiel and Daniel would carry the prize in
all the eastern world. Much nearer to their taste do these authors ap-
proach, than the simple and sublime Isaiah. What rational objection
can be made, now, that a book, such as the Bible, intended for all the
nations of the earth, should exhibit on its pages such a variety of method
in composition, that every part of the world may find in it something
adapted to its own taste ?

What I have now said may serve to explain, and at the same time
defend, the style and manner of the Apocalypse, which so nearly, in
many respects, resembles that of the later Hebrew prophets. The taste
of the later prophets was widely extended and long continued among
the Jews. In its nature it is more truly oriental, than that of the ear-
lier prophets. As the greater portion of the Jews never returned from
exile, but remained in distant eastern countries, no wonder that they
continued to relish in a peculiar manner the symbolic method of writing,
exhibited by the later prophets, and that this taste came down to the
time of the Saviour and his apostles.

It is enough to say, in the way of defending the style of the Apoca-
lypse, if such defence were needed, that John complied with the demands
of the time in which he lived with regard to this. And if it should be
er a Se wa wo Pol i ae emp the sab

: : hould be remembered, that the prophetic

hs

APOCALYPTIC STYLE OF PROPHECY. 35

declarations of both are exceedingly b ee arly comprising more than
a few sentences, and it
for composition of 's

clarations of such a character there is not room
t nature as ‘John exhibits. But the reader
should also call to d the exceedingly figurative, I might’ even say
symbolic, description of the Saviour’s coming to punish the Jews, as set
forth in Matt. xxiv. I would reminc him, also, that every part of our
Saviour’s instructions is filled with parables and similitudes ; a method
of speaking altogether of the like nature with that of using symbol in
prophecy.

It will be aantial te n all hands, that it is important for an interpre-
ter of any particular book of Scriptures, to gain 2 all the knowledge which
he can of the taste and manners of the age in which the author of that
book lived. Whoever was the author ar the Apocalypse, there can be
no rational doubt that the book itself was written during the first cen-
tury of the Christian era. Was the author alone and peculiar in his
taste? Was he so singular, so peculiar in the method of his composi-
tion, as to offend the feelings and taste of his contemporaries, and expose
his book to be charged by his readers with being extravagant and unin-
telligible? So one would think from the charges which in recent times
have been often made against the book, and which are not without ex-
ample, even during and after the latter part of the third century. There
have not been wanting critics, indeed, such as they were, who have more
than intimated that the writer of the Apocalypse was a kind of enthu-
Siastic visionary, agitated, when he wrote his book, by a species of mono-
mania springing from the troubles and persecutions of the times in which
he lived. It is thus that ignorance or misconception of the true nature
of this work can speak ; but it becomes those who have examined this
matter, to consider well whether there is any weight in allegations of
such a character.

My position is, that the taste and manner of the Apocalypse ts the taste
and manner of the later Hebrew prophets, and of the age in which John
himself lived. The former part of this allegation has already been illus-
trated and confirmed. It remains to exhibit, if it can be done, the truth
of the latter.

Fortunately for my purpose, there are a number of compositions still
extant, which took their rise during the first century or near the close of
it, and which either lay claim to a prophetic character, or evidently ex-
hibit, in their style and method, an attempt to imitate the symbolic or
apocalyptic mode of writing. From these we can judge what the taste
and feelings of that period was, in regard to composition of this nature ;
for nothing can be plainer, than that writers, who were desirous of being
read, would not knowingly offend against the taste of the age in which
they lived. It is evident, indeed, from the first reading of the pieces in

ur
36 APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES

question, that the enndalgomicogics of writing was one which was con-
sidered as specially agreeable to the taste of the times, and one which
would easily find its way to popular favour. pet +7

In giving some account of the ancient apocalyptic literature, which is

ype
of an apocryphal nature, for the purpose of

illustrating the spirit of the
age in which John lived, I shall divide it into two classes; viz. (1) Such

ooks as are not known to be extant at present, but which are mention-
ed by ancient writers. (2) Such works as, either in whole or in part,
in a translation or in their original language, have come down to us.

I have named all the books of this nature APOCRYPHAL; and by this
designation I mean to characterize them, (1) As not belonging to the
Christian canon of sacred books; and (2) As containing ungrounded
pretences to the spirit of prophecy, and exhibiting by their manner and
matter more or less of fanaticism, empty auguries, idle speculations, vain
boastings of revealed scientific knowledge, mere histories of the past
clothed in the garb of predictions, and assumptions of very. extraordinary
communications made in a manner not only supernatural, but not unfre-
quently in a way that is extravagant, childish, and altogether incredible.
With all these is intermixed many fine moral and sometimes truly Ohris-
tian sentiments, and many views of God and divine things which have
their origin in the Scriptures. It will be understood of course, that I do
not here undertake to characterize the works of the Hebrew prophets
named above, but only such later apocryphal books as we now have op-
portunity to examine. Other apocryphal works which have perished,
if we may judge from the few specimens of them that have been pre-
served, and from the fate itself which they have experienced, were for
the most part inferior to those which still remain. The ertwoso in an-
cient. sacred literature is probably, therefore, the only person that now
suffers any serious inconvenience worth naming, from the loss to which
Trefer. Still, the reader will remember, that a leading object before us
at present is to inquire, whether the age of John was an age productive
in an uncommon degree of compositions which were designed to be of an
apocalyptic nature; and if so, whether there is anything strange in the
fact, that John has made use of that method of developing his prophetic
views which the Apocalypse exhibits ?

§ 5. Apoeryphal Apocalypses which are not known to be now extant.

It will be understood by the reader, that the great antiquity of all
these is not asserted; because the means of investigating the question
of age, are not in all cases within our power. In general we may with
mueh probability believe them to have been the productions of quite an
early age of Christianity, although not, perhaps, of the first century,

54

NOT NOW KNOWN TO BE EXTANT. — 37

I said simply recount such of these pooksllis are known by, their sieleas
and refer the reader to, au thors where he will find some description of
them. j

(1) The Apocalypse

t of J f Bhijah. ann: Apocalypse of Fooharneah
(Sogoviov). (3) The z ata e of Zechariah. ae

These are all mentioned as wed that have perished, in the Codex _
Biblioth. Coisl. vel Seguir. ed. Montfaucon, p. 194. Jerome also men-—
tions the first, Epist. 101, ad Pammach. From their titles we should
naturally suppose them to have been apocalyptic in the manner of some
of the Old Testament prophets. But we can make no certain conclusion.
_ (4) The. Apocalypse of Adam. This is mentioned in Epiph. Haer.
31. 8, as being a Gnostic production.

(5) The Apocalypse of Abraham. Also mentioned by the same au-
thor, Haer. 39. 5, and attributed to the Sethites. It is called Abra-
ham, in Pseudo-Athanas. Synopsis Scrip. Sac.

(6) Lhe Apocalypse of Moses. Mentioned by Syncellus, Chronogr.
p- 27, and supposed by him, and, Cedrenus (comp. Histor. p. 3), to be
the same with the book entitled Aexzy Maogug yéveous.

(7) The Prophecies of Hystaspes. 'This book must have been com
posed very early, inasmuch as Justin Martyr (Apol. Maj. § 20) men-
tions it as according, in its matter, with the Sibylline oracles. It ap-
pears not only to have been well known among the early Christians,
but Clemens Alex. (Strom vi. 5) quotes from an apocryphal writing of
the apostle Paul, extant in his time but not particularly described by
him, a passage which shows in what estimation it was held by some.
The writer of that Apocrypha, Clement says, asserts that Paul not only
recommended the Sibylline oracles to the heathen, but also the work of
Hystaspes; in which last work they might find (as he alleges), that
“the Son of God is more gloriously and clearly described [than in the
Sibylline oracles ], and also how that many kings will make war against
Christ, hating him and those who bear his name, and his faithful follow-
ers, and his patience, and his coming.” The book, therefore, would
seem to have been of Christian origin ; while at the same time it was,
according to the testimony of Lactantius (Inst. vii. 15. vii. 18), of a like
tenor with the Sibylline oracles, often approaching the manner of hea-
then predictions. The eschatology of Zoroaster, viz. that the world would
perish by fire, ete., appears to have been adopted by the author of the
book; who probably, therefore, was some oriental.Christian, or Jewish
Christian. Bleek (Theol. Zeitschrift. I. p. 146) supposes the apocry-
phal writing of Paul, mentioned above, to have been composed in the
first century. Of course, if this be correct, the book of Hystaspes
must be assigned to an early period. *

(8) The Apocalypse of Peter. Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 3. 25)

oy
=

ee wae

88 APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSES

makes mention of this, and 1 ranks it with other writings of a similar na-
ture, which he explicitly declares to be spurious. But Clement of Al-
exandria, in one of his Hypotyposes, (which is now lost, but a fragment
of which is found in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VI. 14), makes mention of the
Apocalypse of Peter, and ranks it with the doubted Epistles of Jude
and Barnabas. Before the time of Clement, Theodotus the Gnostic
had made free use of this Apocalypse; and in his "Exhoyus &x tov 7700-
gyrincy OQeoddzov, the same Clement has preserved some small speci-
mens of the Apocalypse in question. The tenor of these is that of
heavy denunciation, probably directed against the Jews. In accordance
with this view of the writing before us, Lactantius speaks in Inst. IV.
21, where he says that the praedicatio of Paul and of Peter at Rome
was reduced to writing, and then cites from this writing many severe
comminations against the Jews. It is doubtful, however, whether this
praedicatio here means the ‘Anoxchuyug Heézeov ; although Grabe and
Schmidt maintain this. It may have been the Kyovywa Ilézgov, to
which matter of this kind would not have been inappropriate——But be
this as it may, the anonymous fragment on the Canon in Muratori (An-
tiq. Ital. Med. Aevi, III. 854), who wrote near the end of the second
century or at the beginning of the third, says: “ Apocalypsis [-s=etg ?].
Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nostris legi in ec-
clesia nolunt.” This writer, then, places the Apocalypse of Peter in
the same rank with that of John; and so Clement of Alexandria appears
to have done. Sozomen also states, that it was read é ci nugow ris
moaoaoxevys, in some of the churches of Palestine, down to the fifth cen-
tury. It was in all probability, then, of Judaeo-Christian origin, and in
its tenor it was like many other productions of that period which had a
similar origin. The extent of the writing cannot be known with cer-
tainty. In the stichometria, i. e. measure or number of ozizot, pertain-
ing to the various sacred and to some apocryphal books, given in Cotel.
Patt. Apostol. I. p. 7, 2070 oziyor are assigned to it by one reading,
and by another 270. To the Apocalypse of John is assigned, in the
same place, 1200.

(9) The Apocalypse of Paul. This was founded on the passage in
2 Cor. 12: 2—4, respecting Paul’s rapture into the third heaven, and
it professes to reveal what was there said to him. It was probably the
same writing that was often cited in ancient times under the title of “4ve-
Bacixdy TTaviov. Augustine (Tract. 98 in Evang. Johannis) says, that
it was “ full of fables invented steultissima presumptione.” The Cainitae,
an anti-Jewish sect and a branch of the Ophitae, appear to have made
great use of this writing. Sozomen refers to it in Ece. Hist. VII. 19;
as do Thedoret and Theophylact in their commentaries on 2 Cor. 12:
2—4, ‘Theodosius of Alexandria, of an uncertain age, in his work

NOT NOW KNOWN TO BE EXTANT. 39

Egurjuata nei ooowdui», speaks of it as being no work of Paul the
apostle, but of Paul of Gemoraia; which st, however, seems to be
merely conjectural.

_ (10), Revelations of Cerinthus. Wiicction much contested has
arisen, in modern times, respecting these Revelations. The question is,
whether a book bearing such a title in ancient times, and being the work
of Cerinthus, really existed; or, whether the Apocalypse of John was
so called by Caius, a presbyter ‘at Rome (fl. A. D. 200), because he sup-
posed Cerinthus to have been the author. Caius was a zealous opposer
of the Montanists, who maintained extravagant views in respect to a
terrestrial Millennium; and in a Dialogue written by him against the
Montanists, he says, as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. 3. 28, “ Cerin-
’ thus, under the guise of revelations written by a distinguished apostle,
has, without regard to truth, introduced to us accounts of wonderful
things as shown to him by angels, affirming that after the resurrection
there will be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that we shall be made
citizens of Jerusalem in our fleshly state, and there serve once more our
lusts and pleasures. And being an enemy to the Seriptures of God,
and wishing to mislead, he says there will be a thousand years of wed-
ding-feasts.” Does Caius here mean, that Cerinthus himself forged
revelations which resembled those of John, and prefixed the apostle’s
name to them in order to gain credit for them? Or does he mean to
stigmatize the Apocalypse itself as a supposititious work, attributed to
John by Cerinthus, and unworthy of credit? \'This is not the proper
place for a discussion of this question, as it will again come up for con-
sideration in the sequel. I will therefore simply remark here, that
Eusebius nowhere mentions a book of this nature which was written by
Cerinthus himself, although he says much of him, and is very particu-
lar in naming all works of such a kind which had come to his know-
ledge. Neither does Irenaeus nor Epiphanius make any mention of
such a work as belonging to Cerinthus, The probability seems rather
to be, that Caius, out of zeal against the Montanists and Cerinthus, who
were enthusiastic Millenarians, meant by this passage to disclaim the
Apocalypse of John because it seemed to him too much to fayour their
cause. He of course attributed the book to some factitious source, and
maintained that deception was practised by Cerinthus in respect to it.

(11) The Apocalypse of Saint Thomas. Merely mentioned in the
Decretum Gelasianum de libris Apocryphis. Also,

(12) The Apocalypse of Stephen the Martyr. Sixtus Senensis, in
his Biblioth. Sac. II. p. 12, quotes a writing of Serapion of Thmuis
against the Manichees, as saying, that they held this Apocalypse in
high estimation. Nothing more is known respecting it. The Greek
original of Serapion remains as yet unpublished.

a 3

- fw
40 T och vemad REVELATIONS STILL EXTANT.

Later Apocalypses in abundance might be named ; but this would
have no bearing on the object. before us; which is, merely to illustrate
the strong inclination of the early ages of Christianity toward writings
of this nature. Wesee what abundant gleanings have already been
made, from writings which are mostly of early origin, and perhaps all
of them; but which have perished, through their extravagance or in-
significance. In regard to some others yet to be mentioned, we are
placed in a different position. We have them before us, and can ex-
amine and judge for ourselves respecting the nature and design of their
composition. I shall give the result of my examination as briefly as is
consistent with imparting the requisite information to those who may
have no access to the originals, and who wish for such an account of ,
them as will enable them to form some proper judgment of the books in
question.* inti

§ 6. Apoeryphal Revelations still extant.

These are (a) The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet. (6) The Book
of Enoch. (c) The fourth Book of Ezra. (d) The Sibylline Oracles.
(e) The Testament of the twelve Patriarchs. (jf) The Shepherd of
Hermas. (g) The apocryphal Apocalypse of John.

(a) The Ascension of Isaiah the Prophet.

Such is the general title given to a singular book, of no small interest
to the critic who is concerned with Christian antiquities. Several of
the early Christian writers have referred to this production; and some
have quoted a part of its contents in such a way, as to show that it was
originally written in Greek. From the sixth century, however, nearly
down to the present time, with the exception of only now and then a
solitary voice, a deep silence has reigned among ecclesiastical writers of
all classes respecting it; and it is but a few years since, that the learned
counted it among the books which were irretrievably lost. Happily, a
little more than 20 years ago, Dr. Laurence, then Regius Professor of
Hebrew at Oxford, came into possession of an Acthiopic translation of
this work, which he procured from a bookseller in London, who had
purchased it among a parcel of miscellaneous books at auction, without
any knowledge as to whence it came or what it contained. In 1819
Dr. Laurence gave to the world the contents of it, in Aethiopic, and in
a Latin translation with notes, to which he subjoined an English version,

* For the substance of the preceding summary respecting the lost ° Anonahiwers,
I am indebted to the interesting work of F. Licke, Einl. in die Off, Johannis, fF.
p. 44 seq. It is more complete and better arranged, than any other which I have
seen. ’

= s
Pu

ay
were _ #
§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISATAH. Al

and a critical dissertation in the same language. Of the general fidelity
and ability of these critical labours, there is, I believe, no doubt among
those who are qualified to judge. ~e
~The general title of the book, Ascension of Isaiah, or (as Epiphanius .

Haeres. 40 calls it) AvaBactxdy Eoaiov, does not seem to be appropriate
to the whole composition. It is divided, by the nature of its contents
and by the mode in which it is written, into two parts; the first of which
(chap. i—v.) is. a kind of short biographical sketch of the prophet Isa-
‘iah; and. the second (chap. vi—xi.) contains an account of his ascent to
the upper heaven. There is a separate title for the second part, viz.
The Vision (6gaois) which Isaiah the son of Amos saw, in the 20th
year of the reign of Hezekiah king of Judah. A brief view of the con-
tents of this peculiar and interesting piece, will not be unacceptable to
the reader who is not able to procure the book. It is, moreover, of some
importance to the accomplishment of the object’ which I have in view.
Its general similarity of form to the Apocalypse of John must, in many
respects, be evident to every intelligent reader. The tenor of the book
is as follows:

‘Hezekiah, in the 26th year of his reign, sent for his only son Manasseh, and
brought him before the prophet Isaiah and his son Josheb, in order that he might
deliver to him the truths, which he. himself had received from the prophet, re-
specting eternal judgments, the torments of Gehenna that place of everlasting
punishment, the different orders of angels—and truths relating to the faith of the
Beloved [the Messiah], the destruction of the world, the clothing of the saints,
their departure and change, and the rejection and ascension of the Beloved. These
truths, [it is said], were seen in prophetic vision by Isaiah in the 20th year of
Hezekiah’s reign.’ [These subjects have respect to the contents of the second
part of the book entitled Vision or” Ogaoue, viz. chap. vi—xi. ]

‘Isaiah informs the king that his son will reject all these truths; that Samael
[Satan] will take possession of him, and lead him to pervert many, and also to
the murder of the prophet himself. Hezekiah weeps, and determines to destroy
Manasseh; but the prophet forbids him.’ Ch. i.

‘ After Hezekiah’s death, Berial [Belial = Satan] leads Manasseh into all man-
ner of wickedness, specially idolatry and the persecution of the faithful servants
of God. Isaiah, with other prophets, flees from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and
they take up their abode on a desert mountain there, where they subsist on roots
and herbs. After two years, a false prophet by the name of Belkira, a Samaritan
residing at Bethlehem, discovering the place of Isaiah’s retreat, accuses him to
Manasseh as being guilty of blasphemy in asserting that he had seen God [Is. vi.],
also because he had called Jerusalem Sodom, and denounced her princes as people of
Gomorrha, [Is. 1:10]. Manasseh sends and apprehends Isaiah; for Berial (who
dwelt in him) was greatly enraged on account of his prophecies respecting the
Beloved,’ [viz. those mentioned under chap. i.]

After narrating the apprehension of Isaiah, on account of the predic-
tions which he had before uttered concerning the Beloved, who would
come from the seventh heaven, take the form of man, be persecuted by

VOL. I, 6

a

42 s § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH.

the Jews, and finally crucified “in company with the workers of iniquity,”
the writer goes on to recite more particulars of the prophecy of Isaiah.”

‘The twelve apostles take offence, watchmen guard the sepulchre of the Be-
loved, angels descend to open it on the third day, the twelve disciples are com-
missioned to preach to all nations, the Holy Spirit is given and miracles become
frequent. Afterwards, however, disciples forsake the doctrine of the twelve apos-
tles respecting the second advent of Christ, and contend much about the proximity of
his approach. There will be great defections in doctrine and practice, among
pastors, elders, and their flocks ; but few faithful teachers will be left, and a lying,
worldly, ambitious, avaricious spirit will prevail.’ [The reader will not fail to
notice how plainly these things characterize the time in which the writer must

«When this period is completed, Berial will descend [viz. from the firmament
or upper regions of the atmosphere, in which the author supposes him to live], in
the form of an impious monarch, the murderer of his mother, the sovereign of the
world, [he means ero who murdered his own mother], and he will persecute
and-oppress all the disciples of the Beloved, claim divine honours, overturn all
the usual and established courses of things, be worshipped. and served as God,
erect his image everywhere, and have power three years, seven months, and twenty-
seven days. Only a few believers will be left, waiting for the coming of their
Lord ; which shall take place after 332 days. Berial and his powers shall be
dragged into Gehenna, and the saints shall enjoy the rest provided for them in their
present bodily state. All the saints from heaven, in their heavenly clothing, shall
descend with the Lord, and dwell in this world; while the saints, who had not
died, shall also be clothed in like manner with those who come from heaven, and,
after a time, leave their bodies here, in order to assume their heavenly station.
The universal’ wreck of the material world will follow; and this will be the
forerunner of the general resurrection and the judgment. The ungodly shall
be devoured by fire which issues from the Beloved.’ Chap. iv.

The writer now breaks off from his account of Isaiah’s prophecy, and
refers us, for the remainder, to the Vision of Babylon; by which I un-
derstand a part of the canonical. Isaiah, viz. chap. xiii. xiv. xxi, He
evidently expects his readers to find there a type or exemplar of the
punishment of the second Babylon [Rome ], with all its adherents.

Chap. v. contains an account of the final martyrdom of the prophet, ‘ who was
sawn asunder, through the influence of Berial, with a wooden saw. Belkira, the
Samaritan, and others stood by, now deriding his sufferings, and then endeavor-
ing to persuade him to recant what he had said against them. But he hearkened
not to their counsels, and died without a tear or a groan, calling upon the Holy
Spirit. All this was brought about by Samael [Satan], who was enraged because
of Isaiah’s prophecy respecting the Beloved, and also respecting the destruction of
Satan and his kingdom.’

It cannot have escaped the reader’s notice, how entirely the general
tenor of the foregoing alleged predictions of Isaiah accord with the latter
part of the Apocalypse. But of this, more in the sequel.

Here ends the first part of the Ascension of Isaiah ; and, from its con-
tents, it might with much more propriety be named éfod0¢ or wagrvguoy

§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 43

Eoaiov. But it would seem, that some redactor who gave currency to
the work, affixed a general title, because the first part might be fairly
considered as nothing more than an ¢ntroduction to the second. The
abstract of the “Ogacis must be very brief.

‘Isaiah, with his son Josheb, visits Hezekiah in the 20th year of his reign;
and thirty prophets, with many sons of the prophets, were also assembled on this
occasion, in order to listen to the distinguished seer. The voice of the Holy
Spirit [$p na] is soon heard, while Isaiah is talking with the king; and all fall
prostrate and worship. Isaiah remains in a trance, conversing with the Holy
Spirit. One of the glorious angels of the seventh heaven is sent, to conduct
Isaiah thither. When the rapture was accomplished, and the prophet restored to
the use of his bodily faculties again, he related the particulars of his ascension
to the king and some of his officers with the prophets.’ Chap. vi.

The vision during the rapture follows. ‘An angel exceedingly glorious ap-
pears to him, and informs him that he is sent to conduct him into the presence of
God and of the Beloved. First, they ascend to the firmament [the upper part of
the air, i. e. that which lies near the welkin or firmament]. There the prophet
sees Samael and all his powers engaged in fierce contest, and slaughter, and dia-
bolical deeds, doing things like to those which are done on earth.’ [Another
trait. of Nero’s time].

He then ascends above the first heaven or firmament, where he sees a throne
in the midst, with angels on the right and on the left, the former being far more
glorious than the latter, while all unite in praising Him who dwells in the seventh
heaven, and his Beloved. The second heaven repeats the same scene, but with
augmented splendour. Here the prophet prostrates himself in order to worship
Him who sits upon the throne; but he is told by his conductor that it is only an
angel, and that he must reserve his worship for the seventh heaven; [comp. Rey.
19: 10. 22: 9.]

‘Tn the third, the fourth, and the fifth heaven, the same scene is repeated ; the
throne in the midst, the angels on the right and left, and the gradually augment-
ing glory are all mentioned. In the third heayen, however, the commemoration
of things ceases, although the knowledge of them there exists. The glory of
the presiding angel in each of the five heavens, is greater than that of the angels
on the right and left. In the fifth heaven, the augmentation of glory is tripled
or quadrupled.’ Chap. vii.

‘The prophet is next conducted to the ether of the sixth heaven, where he
sees a throne and great splendour. The angel informs him, that he is to see much
greater glory, and that he is to return for a while to his mortal body, but after-
wards by a violent death to come to the seventh heaven, and assume the clothing
there laid up for him. In the sixth heaven, to which he is now conducted, he
sees no throne, no right nor left side differing in splendour ; all are alike splendid,
and ‘all invoke the Father, the Beloved the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with
united voice.’ Here the light is such as makes that of the five heavens appear as
darkness. The prophet prays for liberty to remain here and not return to the
earth; but his request is not granted.’ Chap. viii.

‘ He is next transported to the ether of the seventh heaven. There a voice sa-
Iutes his ear, inquiring whither he would come who dwells among strangers.
Permission, however, is given. by his “ Lord God, the Lord Christ,” to ascend to
the seventh heaven. There are angels innumerable, and all the glorified saints
invested with their heavenly clothing, but not yet crowned or enthroned, nor to

44 § 6, ASCENSION OF ISAIAH.

be so until after the humiliation, exaltation, and glorified state of _the Beloved.
The beloved is to descend through all heavens, unknown to the angels as he
passes, because he assumes their respective forms, [chap. x. 20 seq.] ;. he will
assume the form of man, be reputed as flesh, be crucified, rise from the dead on
the third day, and after 545 days ascend to glory, bringing many saints with him ;
and then shall thrones and crowns be given to them all. Books recording all that
is done on earth are here shown to the prophet, and clothing, crowns, and thrones
are pointed out, which are reserved for saints who are in future to come thith-
er. The Beloved here exhibits himself in surpassing glory. Angels and saints
worship him. He then assumes an angelic form; they still repeat the worship.
Another glorious Being, the Angel of the Holy Spirit, of similar appearance, is
approached and worshipped, although he does not actually change his glory into
one like that of the angels. "The prophet is bidden to worship him. Finally, the
Beloved, the angel of the Holy Spirit, and all the saints and angels, approach
and worship the Father.’ Chap. ix.

‘The prophet now hears praise and glorification transmitted from dll the six
heavens below to Him who is in the seventh ; after which a voice proceeds from
the Father, commissioning the Beloved to descend through all the heayens, con-
cealed from the inhabitants of them. In passing through the domain of Samael,
he is even to assume the appearance of his angels [10: 11]. When the conquest
of all the powers of darkness shall have been achieved, then shall the Beloved
ascend to glory, and reign at the right hand of God.’ ‘In obedience to this man-
date the Lord now descends through all heavens, accompanied by the prophet
and his conductor, and concealed from all those through the midst of whom he
passes. He even assimilates himself to the angels of Samael, as he passes through
the firmament where they dwell.’ Chap. x. '

‘ Next he becomes incarnate in the womb of Mary. The suspicions of Joseph,
his intention to divorce her, the interposition of an angel, the refraining from con-
jugal intercourse, and the miraculous birth of the Saviour, are all then narrated
as passing in vision before the prophet’s eyes. His youth, manhood, miracles,
public development, crucifixion, the sending forth of his apostles, and his ascen-
sion, are all briefly passed inreview. Finally he ascends in his glory, and is seen
and worshipped in his ascent by all the worlds through which he passes, not ex-
cepting even that of Samael. In the seventh heaven, he takes his seat at the
right hand of the great Glory, and the Holy Spirit on the left hand.’

‘Isaiah now returns to his mortal body, and relates to Hezekiah and others
what things he had seen, charging them not to make’ them public until a future
period. On account of this vision Samael hated Isaiah, and caused Manasseh to
saw him asunder.’ Chap. xi.

Such is the deeply interesting apocryphal book before us; on which
it would be easier to write a little volume, than to compress into a few
paragraphs what is appropriate to be said on the present occasion.

Of the individual author of this piece we know nothing with certainty,
or even with probability. That he was a Ohristian, lies upon the face
of the whole composition ; that he was -of Jewish lineage, is almost.
equally plain, from his manifest acquaintance with the ancient Scriptures,
and with the Rabbinical traditions of the times. As an example of the
latter, we may appeal to the martyrology of Isaiah as related in chap. .
5: 11, where the circumstance is mentioned of his being sawn asunder

§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 45

(as Dr. Laurence has it) with a wooden saw. The meaning probably
is, as we should express it, with a wood-saw, i. e. a saw adapted to the
_ sawing of wood. Merely that he was sawn asunder, is the tradition
given in the Mishna (Tract. Jebam. IV. ad fin.) ; so too in Cod. Sanhed.
fol..103. b; and in some other Jewish productions, early. and late, as
well.as'in some of the earlier Christian fathers who make mention of
the same tradition. Paul is supposed by many to refer to the same, in
the émpioPnour of Heb. 11: 37.

To recount the instances in which the author makes reference to Old
and New Testament declarations of facts and truths, would be to repeat
a considerable portion of the whole book ; although in no instance does
he formally quote either Testament, if perhaps we may except ch. viii.
11, where it is said of Isaiah in his earthly. condition, that “he had neither
perceived, nor ascended, nor understood the things” which were reveal-
ed to him in the upper world. The same turn of thought, and nearly
the same expression, may be found in Is. 64: 3,4. But the whole tenor
of the work is most manifestly modelled after portions of the Old and
New Testaments. The rapture of Paul to the third heaven, (2 Cor.
xii.), is the model of the general costume of the book ; and in the exe-
cution of the author’s plan, the visions of God in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Dan-
iel, and the Apocalypse, are all laid under contribution. That he had
read the Apocalypse, seems to me almost beyond a doubt. E. g. Isaiah
says (Ascens. 8: 4) to his angel-conductor: “What is this which I be-
hold, my Lord? He replied: I am not thy Lord, but thine associate.”
Here it is very natural to suppose, that Rey. 22:8, 9 or 19:10 was be-
fore the author’s mind. On another occasion (7: 21—23) the prophet
falls down to worship the angel, who replies to him almost according to
the exact tenor of Rey. 19: 10, where John offers to worship his angel-
interpreter. The description of “the impious monarch, the murderer of
his mother” (4; 2—12), seems so plainly to coincide, in all its leading
features, with that of the beast in Apoc. xiii, that the reader cannot
make a comparison between them without a conviction that one must be
the model of the other.

The leading sentiment which lies at the basis of the Apocalypse, and
which has already been exhibited above, is almost with equal plainness
brought to view in the Ascension of Isaiah. According to chap. 4:
13 seq., great defection in the church shall take place before the coming
of Christ; but he will come with his angels, and “drag Berial and his
powers into Gehenna;” comp. Rev. 20:1—3. Then will succeed a
time of rest to the pious; comp. Rey. 20:4—6, ‘The saints in glory
will come with their heavenly splendour, and dwell with the saints on
earth, who will be clad like the glorified saints ; and after the season of rest
is past, they will be transferred to heaven (Ascens. IV. 16, 17). . Then

46 § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH.

all worlds will be shaken by the indignation of the Lord, the resurrection
will take place, the judgment will follow, and a fire will consume all the
ungodly (4: 18).

From this passage it is plain, that the author of the apocryphal book
under examination was a Millenarian in the sense in which Papias and
many of the early Christians were, i. e. that he believed in Christ’s vis7-
_ ble reign on earth, during the period of rest which he had appointed for
his church.

In another passage (9: 12—18), the writer refers to the state of saints
after their death and before the ascension of Christ, in a manner which
shows that he had the first portion of the Apocalypse (chap. iii—vii-) in
view. He speaks of the thrones, and crowns, and the heavenly clothing,
in a way like that of John in the Apocalypse 3:4. 4:4. 6:11.-7:9, 185
one circumstance excepted, of which I shall say more in the sequel.

Gesenius (Hinleit. in Jesaiam, p. 50) does not hesitate to say, that
‘the main object of the writer of the Ascension is, to express his earnest
hope and expectation of the speedy coming of Christ, and of the splendid
triumph for the saints and martyrs which will ensue’ | That this doc-
trine is plainly contained in his book, the passages quoted above are suf-
ficient to show. But these passages are the principal ones to which ap-
peal can be made. Occasional and subordinate allusions to the same
topics are indeed not wanting in the Ascension ; but the plan of the wri-
ter is not simplex duntaxat et unum, like that of John in the Apocalypse.
The book of Daniel was probably before the eye of his mind, as well as
the Apocalypse ; and. these costume of the Ascension in general
approaches nearer to that of the Old Testament prophets, than to that of
the New. This seems to betray the author’s Jewish origin.

There are several limitations of times in this book which I cannot
forbear noticing, as some of them are apparently connected with the
time in which the book was written. In 9:16, Christ’s continuance on
earth, after his resurrection and before his ascension, is said to be 545
days; at least this is apparently the meaning of the passage. This is
so different from the forty days mentioned in Acts 1: 3, that no critic on
the Ascension has yet been able to find a solution of the difficulty.
Nitzsch, in some highly acute and critical remarks on the production be-
fore us, (Studien und Kritiken, III. p. 235), thinks it not improbable,
that the writer means to include not only the time of the Saviour’s so-
journ with his apostles, but also the period in which he was engaged in
subduing Samael and his angels who dwell in the upper atmosphere,
before the Conqueror ascended into the heavens themselves. In the to-
tal absence of satisfactory facts, we may consent at least to hear inge-
nious conjecture.

In chap. 4: 12, the writer assigns to the persecuting power of Nero

=

§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 47

the time of three years, seven months, and twenty-seven days. The
burning of Rome was on the 19th of June, A. D. 64. , The persecution
set on foot by Nero against Christians, as the alleged authors. of the con-
flagration, commenced probably in November of the same year. So
Mosheim (De Rebus, etc.), who alleges reasons. apparently satisfactory.
Nero was destroyed on the 9th of June, A. D. 68. Counting back to
November in A. D. 64, we find a space of three years and seven months ;
and if the persecution began quite early in November, A. D. 64, there
will be some days over this time; which seems to be a striking coinci-
dence.—But on the other hand, may not the writer have had in his eye
the period assigned to the great persecutor of the church mentioned in
Dan. 12:12, viz. 1335 days? If the years be reckoned at 365 days, and
three of the months at thirty, and four at thirty-one days, this will make
the identical period mentioned in the Ascension, with the exception
of only one day. It is difficult to decide in such a case, where either
method of reckoning would. seem to be satisfactory.

In 4: 14 of the Ascension, it is said, “the Lord shall come with his
angels . . . to drag Berial and his powers into Gehenna, after 332 days,”
viz. from the end.of Nero’s reign as above described. Here is the por-
tion of time on which Laurence fixes as the period within which the
Ascension must have been written. After this period had elapsed, and
Christ had not come as was expected, the writer could not have ventured
on so bold an assertion. Of course, then, sometime during A. D. 69
must be the date to be assigned to the origin of the Ascension.

Yet with this, neither Gesenius, Bleek, Nitzseh, nor Licke, appears to
be satisfied. They regard. the numbers in this work as merely symboli-
cal, and are not, therefore, disposed to admit a literal construction. I
cannot but think that their criticism is doubtful. There are other cir-
cumstances in the book, which they do not seem to have noticed, that
fix the time of its composition to a very early age; I should say, to the
first century. In 3:21 seq. it is expressly stated, that great divisions
and troubles shall arise in the church “upon the subject of his [Christ’s ]
second advent ....and the proximity of his approach.” Paul’s second
epistle to the Thessalonians is a comment on this. Every person well
acquainted with the early history of Christianity knows, that the latter
half of the first century gave rise to many opinions and controversies on
this subject, and that a very general expectation was indulged, for a
time, that Christ would appear in his glory before the generation then
living should pass away... Many of the German critics think they find
such expectations fully and often expressed in every part of the New
Testament. Now as all hopes of this nature must of course vanish with
the first century, so no disputes on the point, when Christ would come,
appear to have been seriously and extensively agitated after the close of

48 § 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH.

the first century. ‘The Millenarians of subsequent periods were particu-
larly concerned with the question of a visible reign ; not so much, whether
the reign would commence immediately after the death of Nero, or of
Domitian ; for that period was already passed. After the death of Nero,
then, and before the expectation of Christ’s speedy appearance was given
up, must, as seems to my mind, be the period fixed upon as the probable
date of the Ascension.

Gesenius objects to fixing upon an origin so early, that the doctrine
of the Trinity is too prominent in the book, to render it probable that
the Ascension could have been composed until a later period, when this
doctrine was more fully developed. Laurence, on the other hand, glo-
ries in having found in the book irrefutable oe of the early exist-
ence, even in the apostolic age itself, of the doctrine of the Trinity; Gen.
Remarks, p. 111 seq. I cannot accede to the opinion of either. In
Chap. 1: 7, the writer says, indeed: “ As God liveth ... as the Beloved
[ayannt6s = Christ] of my Lord liveth, as the Spirit . . . liveth.” Again
in 8:18 he says: “ All [the angels] invoked the’ first, the Father, and
his Beloved the Christ, and the Holy Spirit, all with united voice.”. In
9: 832—86, the Lord of glory [Christ] and the Holy Spirit are repre-
sented as objects of angelic worship; and in 11: 32, 33, they are repre-
sented as ovv9ovos with the Father. ‘There are other passages, also,
of a similar tenor. But after all, in 9: 40,occurs a passage, which seems
to render doubtful the force of Laurence’s argument. It runs thus:
“ Then I saw that my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy: Spirit,
and they both of them together glorified God [the Father].” This
seems to develope at least the subordination-theory of the Trinity, and
probably, along with this, something of the emanation-system of the Gnos-
tics. The book is confessedly Gnostic, in some of its views respecting
the spiritual world; and the doctrine of the Trinity, as here exhibited,
would not be much unlike that of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and many
others. I cannot doubt that the germ of the emanation-theory sprung
up in middle Asia, where the celebrated system of Zoroaster would give
immediate countenance to such speculations. A belief in one underived
Being; and two derived Ones, who have all the attributes of divinity ex-
cept self-existence and independence, was easily and obviously deducible
from Parsism, and seems to have tinctured the views of our author. At
all events, his doctrine of a Trinity is quite different from that in which
Athanasius believed, and from that which Dr. Laurence would admit.

Nor is this the only mark of our author's eastern origin. There is
one circumstance, lightly passed over even by Nitzsch as well as by the.
other critics, which would seem to indicate, somewhat plainly, the quar-
ter from which some of his speculations had been borrowed. In 7: 22
the angel tells Isaiah, that ‘his clothing is laid up... above all heavens,’

ie

om

INTRODUCTION.

a 7,
$1. General Remarks.

WHATEVER difference of opinion may exist among interpreters of
the Apocalypse, in respect to the meaning which must be assigned to
particular portions of it, there can be but one opinion, as it would seem,
among intelligent and considerate readers, as to the “general object or
design of this book. It lies upon the very face of the whole composition,
I mean the prophetic part of it, that the coming and completion of the
kingdom of God or of Ohrist, or in other words, bsp of Ohris-—
tianity over all enemies and opposers, its universa prevalence in the
world for a long series of years, and its termination in an endless period
of glory and happiness, constitute the main theme of the writer, and is
indeed the almost exclusive subject of his contemplation. *

The light, however, in which he has placed his subject, in order that
it may be viewed by others, must. be carefully examined and considered
by the reader. The announcement of the triumphs which
Christian church, is not made, as it might have been ha the.
pleased, by a simple categorical declaration. Christianity is in a man-
ner personified, and it appears on the scene of action, engaged in a con-—
‘test with the powers of darkness so violent, that the struggle must evi-
dently end in the extermination or utter subjugation of one of the par-
ties. Successively one and another bitter and bloody enemy of the church
is overcome; then follows a long period of peace and prosperity, during
which the influence CMB tie oh is so widely diffused, that no apparent
hostility disturbs it. fter this the powers of darkness renew their as-
sault with exasperated malice and rage; but the interposing hand of
heaven smites them down, and puts a final end to the contest. The
peaceful and universal reign of the Christian religion then succeeds, and
continues down to the final consummation of the Messianic kingdom on
earth, ‘when the resurrection and the judgment-day introduce a new and
perfect order of thing which is ioe continue through ages that have
no end. ae

2 :

wy

10 GENERAL REMARKS.

Such is the simple and perspicuous outline of the Apocalypse. Like
all, or nearly all, particular prophecies of the Old Testament and of the
New, it has one, and but one, main object in view, to which all its vari-
ous representations are subordinate, and to which also the particulars of
each several part are more or less subservient.

Nothing could be more appropriate to the time and cirewmstances in
which the book before us was composed, than the theme which the wri-
ter has chosen. Christians on all sides were agitated by bitter and bloody
persecution. Many professed disciples of Christ were driven by fear, or
allured by the hope of favor and worldly good, to renounce their allegiance
to the Saviour ; while others abstracted themselves from his service and
shunned his followers, in order that they might avoid the horrors of per-
secution. The author of the Apocalypse possessed Christian sympathies
of too high and holy a nature, to look on such a scene without deep emo-
tion. To prevent an evil of so great magnitude, he was directed by the
Saviour to write the book of Revelation, and to publish it by sending it.to
the seven churches of Asia. bie

The composition before us, then, seems to have, been primarily occa-
sioned by the existing state of things ; and surely nothing could be more
appropriate or better adapted to the purposes for which it was originally
written. It is filled, from beginning to end, with encouragement and
admonition and consolation to all who were engaged in the great contest,
then going on. Victory—victory—a final and universal and eternal vic-
tory of the church over all her enemies—is echoed at every pause ; anda
crown of glory is held forth by the God and Judge of all, as ready to be
placed on the martyr’s head, amid the joyful assembly of the first born
in heaven, the moment he falls in the battle which he is waging. A
most fearful end, moreover, awaits the enemies of the kingdom of God.
The worshippers of the idolatrous beast, the adherents of the false pro-
phet, yea, the beast himself and the prophet his coadjutor, with Satan and
all the powers of darkness, are finally cast into the lake that burns with
fire and brimstone, where the smoke of their torment ascends up forever
and ever, while they are suffering the agonies of the second death.

All that hope or fear can do, in the way of operating upon the minds
of men, to encourage them to persevere in a holy course of life, and to
dissuade them from opposition to God and the purposes of his redeeming
grace, seems to be held forth by the Apocalypse. No book in all the
Bible can, on the whole and when rightly understood, be regarded as
exceeding it in respect to adaptedness for making impressions of such a
salutary nature. If the human mind can be affected (and who will deny
that it is most deeply affected ?) by hope and Jear, the highest point to
which the agency of these principles can be carried, is attained by the
writer of the Revelation,

GENERAL REMARKS. 11

Such powerful agencies, we may well say, were needed by Christians,
when banishment and blood were the order of the day, in respect to the
professed followers of a Saviour. Nor have such agencies ever, at any
period since that time, ceased to be highly important ; for, in every age,
the church and the world have been in strenuous opposition, if not in
actual contest. Even at the present hour, such a book as the Apoca-
lypse is greatly needed, in order to encourage the faith and hope of
Christians in regard to the prospects of the church, and to comfort them
under their various sufferings and discouragements. Above all, the
Apocalypse, when rightly understood, would be the Vade Mecum of such
as go forth to publish a Saviour’s name among the perishing heathen.
Surrounded by those who are servants of the powers of darkness, dis-
couraged perhaps by small success, and disheartened by the strength of
superstitions, and by the zeal for bloody or foolish rites and ceremonies
which pervades all around them, the faithful missionary may read with
tears of joy the precious promises so often held out in the book before
us — promises of the final and universal triumph of truth and love over
all the opposition of error and. of malignity ; and when he lights apes
the soul-reviving assurances of the Saviour that “he will sur ely come,”
his heart may respond, like that of the apocalyptic seer: “ Amen; even
.so; Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly !”

Q

§ 2. Comparison of the Apocalypse with other scriptural prophecies of «

similar tenor.

In many respects the light and shade of the picture which the Apoca-
lypse presents, are peculiar to this book. No other part of Scripture,
where the same general theme is the subject of contemplation, minutely
resembles the Revelation as to form and method. Nowhere is the sub-
ject of the church’s triumphs pursued to such a length, and exhibited |
with such continuity and fulness. Yet the same general theme, viz., the
final and universal triumph of truth and holiness over error and sin, is
by no means new or peculiar to the Apocalypse. Many other prophe-
cies relate to this subject, and predict the same issue of the struggle be-
tween the powers of light and darkness.

To these prophecies, however, belong, as has just been hinted, some
striking features of diversity, when compared with the Apocalypse, which
deserve particular consideration. Most of them are quite brief, present-
ing only in a few verses that which is expanded by the author of the
Apocalypse into almost an entire book. Most of them, moreover, pre-
sent the simple fact of triumph over all the enemies of the church, with-
out bringing into view any definite series or succession of triumphs. In
short, they stand related to the Apocalypse, much as the simple story, or

12 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

historic facts, that form the basis of an epic poem, stand related to the
poem itself, with all its machinery and with all the decorations that have
sprung from the glowing imagination of the poet. The kernel or nucleus
of the Apocalypse lies, indeed, enfolded in many a passage of the Old
Testament, and in not a few of the New; but nowhere among all these
passages is any such full and ample development of the subject made, as
in the writing before us. Never before had such a full development
been so much needed. The time was now come, during the apostolic
ve, when the kingdom of God was to be built up on its new and last
jundation, and when the fulfilment of all that the ancient Scriptures
ontain respecting it, was about to commence. The writer of the Apoc-
'ypse lived in the very midst of the contest that was going on, was him-
If a sufferer in it, and therefore took a deep interest in the theme which
as the main object of his book. Vivid feeling and powerful represen-
ition might be expected of him in circumstances like these ; and such
ve Apocalypse everywhere exhibits.

The charge has indeed not unfrequently been made against this book,
aat itis altogether wnique, and that the genius of the whole New Testa-
hent stands in opposition to it, or at least is as widely distant from it as
jossible. Even Luther, as we know, treated the Revelation with neg-
ect, at first, if not with scorn, because, as he averred, he could not find
Shrist in it; for, as he viewed the subject, Jesus Christ, and Christ as erw-
“fied, must be the main theme of all that belongs to a true gospel-book.
This is not the place to examine the allegations of Luther; but thus

uch may be said, without fear of contradiction by any intelligent read-
pr of the present day, namely, that of all the books in the New Testa-
ment, Christ, as the beginning, middle, and end, appears most conspic-
uous in the Apocalypse. The peculiarity of manner in this book, i. e.
the peculiarity of style, diction, plan, and: mode of representation—in a
word, of all which belongs. simply to costwme—I readily concede ; in-
deed, I have already alluded to it in the preceding remarks. But we
shall see in the sequel, that the fundamental truth or basis of the Apoc-
alypse is one which is a common theme of prophecy, both in the Old
Testament and in the New. In order to confirm this, we must pass in

brief review some of the evidence which lies before us.
i

I. Passages in the Old Testament.

(1) Gen, 3:15. From the early origin of our race, immediately
after the fall of man, the prediction was uttered by his merciful Judge,
that ‘the Seed of the woman should bruise the Serpent’s head.’ I am
aware that some have rejected the idea of finding a predicted Messiah here.
But it seems to be plain, that the apostle, who (Rom. 16: 20) prays.
that ‘the God of peace, would shortly bruise Satan under the feet of the

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 18

Romish Christians,’ understood the declaration in Gen. 8: 15 as a pre-
diction of the triumph of the church over the powers of darkness.
And in Rev. 12: 17, the dragon is represented as ‘going to make war
with the seed of the woman,’ with evident allusion to the declaration of
the same text. With such examples before us; why should we hesitate
to avow our persuasion, that the promise in Gen. 8: 15 pertains to the
Saviour and the church, and that it announces the same sentiment
which lies at the basis of the Apocalypse, namely that truth and love
shall at last come. off victorious over falsehood and malignity.

(2) In Gen. 12: 3. 18: 18. 22: 18, are promises to Abraham, that
“in him, or in his seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed.”
In Gen. 17: 5 is a promise, that ‘he should become the father of many
nations.’ In Gen. 26: 4, the promise made to Abraham is renewed to
Isaac, who is told, that ‘in his seed all the nations of the earth should be
blessed.” If now we may allow Paul to be our expositor here, we
shall find that in Rom. iv. and in Gal. iii, he interprets. the promises
made to Abraham as having reference to the Messiah, to the calling of the
Gentiles, and to the wide diffusion of the gospel among them. That
Abraham himself so understood them, seems to be highly probable from
what the Saviour says, “ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day,
and he saw it and was glad,’ John 8:56. Still we find nothing more ex-
plicitly predicted here, than that some one of Abraham’s posterity should
arise, who would be a blessing not only to the patriarch’s seed, but to
the Gentile world at large. When, how, or by what means all this was
to be accomplished, these early predictions do not of themselves inform
us. That Abraham, in consequence of them, looked forward to a. Mes-
stanie day, when the triumphs of truth and love over the powers of
darkness and malignity should take place, we know. But how definite
his knowledge or expectation was, we have no sure means of determin-
ing. Be this as it may, the germ of the Apocalypse lies in the pro-
mises made to Abraham and his seed.

(8) The prophetic declaration of the dying Jacob, in respect to Ju-
dah, was, that “the scepter should not depart from Judah, nor a law-
giver from between his feet, until Shiloh should come; and to him
should the gathering of the people be ;” Gen. 49: 10.

It would be foreign to my purpose to enter into the critical disputes
about this passage. It is enough, that by general accord it is now ac-
knowledged, that A>" (from 23) may mean either peace-maker, or tran-
quilitas. Even in the latter case, as Gesenius (Lex. s. v.) concedes,
the expectation of quiet is in and through the king Messiah, who is to
spring from Judah. Peace-maker, or Prince-of-peace, is a name highly
appropriate to the future king of the Jews, (comp. Is. 9: 6); and to
those who believe that God made promises of a Messianic nature to

14 . COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

Abraham and to Isaac, it will not seem strange that they were also re-
newed to the dying Jacob. But there is still the same simple and ge-
neric idea at the basis of this promise, which forms the basis of the pre-
-ceding ones, viz., that some one among the progeny of Judah should be
a blessing to the world at large: “ Unto him shall the gathering of the
people (nay nations) be.” With this we may compare Is. 42: 4, where
it is said respecting the lect Servant of God, that “he shall not fail . . .
until he have set judgment in the earth, and made the isles to wait for
his law.” Haggai 2: 7 gives a like sense: “J will shake all nations,
and the Desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house with
my glory ;” and many more. passages might easily be quoted, of the
same tenor. The passage in Haggai shows what the disposition of the
nations shall be in respect to the Messiah; for he is named their Dr-
sirE. The passage in Isaiah shows the extent to which the nations will
be “gathered.”

(4) Passing by the historical books, in which some Messianic pre-
dictions may be found, e. g. 2 Sam. 7: 12 seq., let us proceed to the
book of Psalms. The second Psalm, with nearly all of the ancient in-
terpreters and most of the modern ones, we may regard as Messianic.
We have a special reason for so doing, inasmuch as Paul, in Acts 13:
33 and Heb. 1: 5, has expressly and plainly quoted it as being Messianic.
In this Psalm we are presented,. first, with the combination of the
wicked against the person and dominion of their anointed King; then
with the determination of him who “sitteth m the*heavens” that ‘the
throne of this King. should be established, and that all nations, even the
uttermost parts of the earth, should be given to him as a heritage. All
who continue to oppose his righteous dominion, will be dashed in pieces
as a potter’s vessel.’ Such then is to be the dominion and power of
the Anointed King; his sway is to be universal, his power to “ put all
enemies under his feet” is irresistible. And such—to all intents and
purposes—is the picture presented of this King in the Apocalypse. He
goes forth “conquering and to conquer.” He is “ King of kings and
Lord of lords ;” and all who oppose themselves to his righteous and
lawful dominion are “dashed in pieces as a potter’s vessel.”

But how different the mode of David and John, in presenting the
same great truth! In Ps. ii, a few verses, couched in simple figurative
language, are employed to designate all which the writer intended to
say; probably all that was present to his mind. But in the Apoca-
lypse, we have a protracted series of events, all represented to us by
symbols throughout. Yet if all which is here symbolized should be com-
bined together into one brief and general view, it could not be more
simply and happily. presented, than it is in the second Psalm.

The reader will easily be able to make for himself, without any sug-

%

w

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 15

gestions from me, the like remarks on a large number of the Messianic
passages yet to be produced. I shall therefore deem it unnecessary for
me to repeat them.

(5) To Ps. viii. a Messianic sense is denied by many interpreters of
the present day. It would be out of place for me here to enter into a
critical vindication of the interpretation which I feel constrained to give
it, when I construe it as being Messianic. In so doing, I follow the
author of the epistle to the Hebrews (2: 6—9), who clearly makes
such an application of its sentiments. In this Psalm, again, the simple
generie idea of universal dominion stands prominent; connected, as a
matter of course, with the supreme exaltation and glory of the person-
age thus exalted. In allrespects the matter is substantially the same as
that in Ps. ii, while the costume is quite different, and the comminatory
part of Ps. ii. is here omitted.

(6) Ps. xxii. is another portion of Scripture, the Messianic sense of
which I cannot hesitate to acknowledge. I would not appeal to the
commencing words of -it, as repeated by the dying Saviour upon the
cross, for satisfactory proof of this; because he might have quoted.a
pious sentiment from a Psalm not Messianic: but. I may appeal to
Matt, 27: 39, 43 and to John 19: 24, for satisfactory proof that the
Evangelists regarded this Psalm as Messianic. Somewhat more than
half of the Psalm is occupied with describing the sufferings of the Mes-
siah. Verse 22 begins the note of joy and triumph. He who had
been a degraded sufferer, is to praise God in the midst of the congre-
gation for deliverance ; and this deliverance is: to be proclaimed before
the world as a ground of trust and confidence in God. “ All the ends
of the world,:too, will call it to mind and turn to the Lord, and all the
kindreds of the nations will worship before him.” ... “ The kingdom is the
Lord’s, and he is to govern among the nations.” . . “A people that is to
be born shall declare his righteousness.” Here again, the simple idea is,
that he who once was in a suffering and dying condition, shall become
the instrument of bringing all nations to serve and to praise the Lord ;
which latter idea is the same that is contained in Ps. ii. and viii, although
it is invested with a drapery quite different..

(7) 2s. xlv. One greater than David or Solomon appears to be here.
Unio the Son a part, at least, of the words of this Psalm are said by a
sacred writer to be addressed, Heb. 1: 8; and well may we credit. this,
when the. nature of the Psalm is thoroughly examined. ‘The writer
presents us with a view of a king, fair, eloquent, heroic, a wise and con-
descending and upright governor, and an irresistible conqueror of all his
enemies. His dominion is eternal; and that all people may yield a
willing subjection to him, he becomes affianced to the daughter of a
foreign prince, and admits other foreign princesses among the retinue of

16 . COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

his court. Cheerful subjection to him is yielded, in prospect of the
blessings to be enjoyed. Here again is presented the same attitude of
things as in the Apocalypse. “'The arrows are sharp in the hearts of
the king’s enemies,” and “ the people fall beneath his terrible right arm.”
The image of the bride, the Lamb’s wife (Rev. 19: 7—9), seems to have
been suggested to the apocalyptic seer, by the royal espousals described
in the Psalm before us. Even the special idea at the close of the Ps.
(v.16), viz. that the children of the bride are to be “made princes in all
the earth,” is repeatedly brought before us in the Apocalypse, by the
declaration that Christians are to be made “kings and priests unto God ;”
see Rey. 1: 6. 5: 10. 20: 6, comp. 1 Pet. 2:-9.

(8) I cannot prove that Ps. lxxii. is Messianic; but I may suggest,
that the contents seem to be appropriately applied when they are so in-
terpreted, and that what is said here is of higher import than belongs
to any ordinary king. Although it is not directly quoted and applied to
the Messiah in the New Testament, yet, with Rosenmueller, 1 must
think that a greater than David, Solomon, or any Jewish king, is to be
found bere. The dominion of the Prince here described is to extend
“from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” He will be
a merciful, just, and powerful king, vindicating the oppressed and helping
the poor and needy. In his days shall the earth yield a most abundant
increase; its “fruit shall wave ike Lebanon,” and all nations shall pour
into his treasures their precious substance. “ His name shall endure as
long as the sun... all nations shall call him blessed.” Here again is
the usual idea of universal dominion, with the accessory one of universal
and extraordinary fruitfulness of the earth. For the first time we find
this latter idea here-introduced. JLvterally I do not suppose it is to be
interpreted, any more than other similar images in descriptions of this na-
ture.. But the least which can be said, is, that it is a lively image of pros-
perity and happiness under the reign which is here predicted.

(9) Ps. ex. very much resembles the second Psalm in the tenor of its
contents, and has been very generally conceded to be Messianic. Matt.
22: 42—45. Acts 2: 834—26. 1 Cor. 15:25, and Heb. 1:18. 5: 6,
seem to leave no room for doubt, that the New Testament writers at any
rate regarded this Psalmas Messianic. Supreme exaltation and domin-
ion are here ascribed to a King, who is to be enthroned with God. His
enemies are all to be subdued and prostrated, by a contest which shall fill
many places with dead bodies, and wound the heads over many coun-
tries. A King and a Priest forever the conqueror is then to be made,
by the immutable oath of God. The priesthood which is here ascribed
to this exalted king, seems to be the only point of difference between this
and Psalm ii. which needs to be mentioned. In other respects, there is
simply the idea of universal sway and of irresistible permanent power

38

WITH OTHEB SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 17

and dominion presented to our view. That this glorious King is also to
be a Priest forever, is an accessory idea by no means to be overlooked.
‘The Apocalypse also preserits us with a view of the Messiah, as having
made his followers “kings and priests to God forever and ever,” by the
offering of his own blood in the capacity of our great high Priest.

(10) Passing by minor and controverted passages, let us next take a
view of what the Evangelical Prophet has said, in relation to the subject
before us. Is. 2: 2—4, (with which Mic. 4: 1—4 should be compared),
presents us with the simple idea, that. the Lord’s house shall be exalted
high above all other places of worship, and that all nations shall go up
to pay their homage there, and to learn the laws and statutes of Jeho-
vah. When this shall come to pass, universal peace shall prevail, and
the nations learn war no more. This unites the two leading ideas in
Gen. 49: 10 and Ps. ii. Sheloh or Peace-maker is to come in the last
days, and the uttermost. parts of the earth are to be given to him as a
heritage. The Messianic nature of this passage is:admitted almost with-
out a question.

(11) Equally plain is the passage in Is. 9: 1—7. ‘ Great light is to
be scattered over the nations who have been walking in darkness. The
rod of every oppressor is to be broken, the noise of battle to cease, gar-
ments rolled in blood no more to be seen; while the Prince of peace,
whose name.is Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the perpetual
Father or Guardian of his people, is to have a government of which
there shall be no end, and his throne to be established in judgment and
justice forever and’ever’ The tenor of this is the same with that of
Is. 2: 2—4, although the manner of the annunciation is quite diverse.
The leading idea in both these passages should be compared with those
views in the Apocalypse, which present the universality of Christ’s king-
dom, the peaceable reign, first of a thousand years, and then again of a
period after the enemies of the church, the hosts of Gog and Magog, are
destroyed.

(12) In Is. 11: 1—10, “the Shoot from the stem of Jesse, the Branch
from his roots,” is to be endowed with every gift and grace which will
qualify him to judge with equity and to rule with wisdom and discretion.
A time of universal peace shall succeed, in which all, even the noxious
beasts and reptiles of the earth, are to lay aside their enmity, and live
in harmony with each other...“ The earth shall be filled with the know-
ledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” ‘To the “ensign” of
the people “shall the Gentiles seek, and 1itllibecliing-place shall be
glorious.” It is remarkable how frequently and with what ardour the
prophet Isaiah dwells on this view of the Messianic reign. Its unlimi-
ted extent and its undisturbed peace fill him with holy ecstasy.

(18) Is. 85: 1—10 presents us with a somewhat different picture. All

VOL. I. 3

. *%

18 COMPARISON OF THE AP®CALYPSE

the desolate and desert parts of the earth are to become fruitful. Zion
is to be saved from all her enemies. ‘The eyes of the blind are to be
opened; the ears of the deaf are to be unstopped ; the tongue of the
dumb to sing; the lame man is to leap as a hart; and a highway to the
house of God is to be made, over which no unclean person, and no rav-
enous beast, shall pass. “ The redeemed shall walk there, . .. and come
the ransomed of the Lord to Zion, with songs, and everlasting joy upon
their heads.” The idea of an extraordinary fruitfulness of the earth is
here presented in a manner like to that in Ps. xxii. The freedom from
suffering:and sorrow and sin, which will prevail in the days of Zion’s
deliverance, is held up in a most cheering ‘and vivid manner.

(14) With the controversy respecting the genuineness of Is. x1—lxvi,
I have nothing to do at present. My belief is, that, to say the-least, no
proof that ought to satisfy us has yet been adduced, to show that these
chapters belong to a prophet who lived near the close of the Babylonish
exile. At all events, nothing can be more certain, than that the writers
of the New Testament appeal to these chapters as a genuine portion of
the Scriptures ; and equally plain it appears to be, that they appeal to
them as the production of Isaiah. Is. 42: 1—9 seems plainly to be Mes-
sianic, and is so applied in Matt. 12: 17—21. The prediction is, that
the elect servant of God shall, by his gentle and -inoffensive demeanor,
bring forth judgment unto victory, proclaim it to the Gentiles, and make
the isles to wait for his law. He shall be “for a covenant to the people,
for a light to the Gentiles,” and bring out the prisoners who are confined
inthe darkness of dungeons. The Maker of heaven and earth declares
this; and will perform it. The universality of the imfluence of the
Prince of peace is plainly exhibited by this figurative representation.

(15) Is. 49: 1—12 presents us with nearly the same picture, although
drawn with somewhat different colours. The Servant of the Lord, al-
though frustrated at first in his attempts to persuade Israel, will yet
bring back the remnant of them, and become a light to the Gentiles,
even unto the ends of the earth. He will be for “a covenant of the
people,” and all nations, with their kings and princes, shall bow down
before him. In vs. 18—26 of the same chapter, a picture is presented
of the prosperity and enlargement of Zion. Her lost children are to be
restored ; the Gentiles are to bring them in, and kings are to become
nursing-fathers, and queens nursing-mothers, and all her enemies are to
be humbled.

(16) Is. 52: 7—15 presents another description of a like tenor. Good
tidings to Zion are published; her God reigns; the ends of the earth
are to see the salvation of God; the Servant of the Lord will make
many nations to leap for joy, and kings will do him reverence.

(17) Is. 54: 1—5 represents Jerusalem as enlarging itself and break-

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 19

ing forth on the right hand and on the left; as inheriting the Gentiles ;
as having her Maker for her husband, and the Holy One of Israel for
her Redeemer, who shall be called “the God of the whole earth.”

(18) Is. 55: 1—5 invites all without distinction to come and buy wine
and milk without money.and without price ; an everlasting covenant is
to be made with them, and the sure mercies of David to be given them.
The offspring of David is to be given as a leader and commander of the
people, and Zion is to call a nation whom she knew not, and nations
that knew not her are to run unto her.

(19) Is. 60: 1—22 exhibits a variegated and most beautiful picture of
the future prosperity and glory of the church. ‘The Gentiles shall come
to her light, and kings to the brightness of her rising. All nations will
flock to her, and bring their freewill-offerings in abundance. Any who
refuse, shall be utterly laid waste. Universal peace and prosperity will
attend her; wasting and destruction shall no more invade her ; her light
shall never be withdrawn ; mourning no more take place; her people
shall be all righteous; and her increase like that when one becomes a
thousand. ‘fhe Lord will surely accomplish all this, in his time.

(20) Is. 65: 17—25. A, new heavens and a new earth are to be
created. Jerusalemeis to become a rejoicing, and her people a joy. In-
firmities, sorrows, and» brevity of: life, shall no more be.-experienced.
Long life, great prosperity, and undisturbed peace, shall be enjoyed. All
enmity, even among the beasts of the field, shall cease, and-there shall
be nothing te hurt or offend in all. the holy mountain of God. Vs..19—
24 represéiit'Israel.as gathered from among all the nations of the earth
and brought to. Jerusalem.” Phere shall pure worship be established, so
long as the new heavens and the new earth remain before the Lord, and
all flesh shall go up to worship there, from one new, moon to another,
and from one sabbath to another.

The attentive reader must have already observed; in respect to these
predictions of “the evangelical prophet,” that nearly all of them look be-
yond the redemption of the Jews, and include the Gentiles along with
them. Jt is a circumstance worthy of note, on ‘a eritical account, inas-
much as it serves to show, that the same tenor of Messianic prophecy is
exhibited in the former part of the book of Isaiah, as is developed in the
latter part. All is expansive, catholic in the highest sense, truly evan-
gelical, and: demonstrative of a;benevolence commensurate with the wants
and woes of .a perishing world.. That the simple theme which lies at
the basis of all-these predictions, is the future aati hiversal prevalence of
true piety and religion, is evident from the first perusal of them. How
exactly this accords with the main design of the Apocalypse, needs not
to be again asserted.

The general tenor of succeeding prophecies in the Old Testament, is

& COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

more Hebraistic or Jewish in its character. Foreign nations are less the
objects of the writers’ thoughts. To the wants and woes of the Jewish
nation, when they came into a_state of exile and oppression, the pro-
phets of a later period more immediately address themselves. The Jews,
they predict, will be again brought back to their country, and restored
to the divine favour. ‘The time is coming when they shall all-turn to
God, with repentanee for their past transgressions, and with full purpose
of new and evangelical obedience. -

Much less frequent, also, are the Messianic prophecies in Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and the other prophets who lived during the period of the exile,
than they are in the book of Isaiah. The sins and sorrows of the Jew-
ish nation seem to occupy almost the whole soul of the sympathizing,
consoling, warning seers, during that season of chastisement-and distress.

(21) Jer. 23: 5—8. After the Jews have gathered in from their dis-
persion, the righteous Branch of David shall reign over them and’pros-
per. He shall be called the Lord our Righteousness ; and in his days
shall Judah and Jerusalem be safe.

(22) Jer. 31:27—37. The house of Israel and Judah%hall be: built
up, and they shall cease to bear the iniquity of their fathers. A new
covenant shall be made with them, different from the ancient one. God’s
law shall be written upon their hearts ; and all shall know him from the
least to the greatest. The Lord will be their God; he will forgive all
their sins, and cast them off no more. This decree is perpetual as the
ordinances of the sun and of the moon. Comp. Heb. 8: 10 seq.

(23) Jer. 33: 13—26. Judea shall again be inhabited; the Branch
of Righteousness, which is of David, shall thrive, and execute judgment
and justice in the land. Judah and Jerusalem shall be safe under his
protection; his throne shall be perpetual. Pure offerings and holy
priests shall never be wanting. The seed of David and the priests shall
be multiplied as the stars of heaven. The covenant by which all this is
secured, is sure and lasting as that of day and night.

These are all the conspicuous prophecies in the book of Jeremiah,
that have a relation to the subject in question. The mere inspection of
these shows us, that they are confined to the part which the Jewish na-
tion will act, during the future period of the church’s prosperity and
splendour.

(24) Of the same tenor are all the prophecies in EzeKret, with re-
gard to this subject. Ezek. 34: 23—31. One Shepherd shall be set
over Israel, viz. David the servant of God. He shall be their Prince.
They shall enjoy peace and safety. The earth shall yield abundant
increase. Neither the heathen nor beasts of prey shall any more annoy

them. The Plant of renown among them shall supply their wants, and
the Lord shall be their God.

i

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. on

(25) Ezek. 36: 24—38. From all countries shall the Jews be gath-
ered; they shall be purified, and a new heart given to them. God will
give them his Spirit, and cause them to obey his laws. He will save
them from their enemies, and from all the various evils which they had
so long suffered. They shall become true penitents, and their land,
which was a desolation, shall be like the garden of Eden. God will be
inquired of, in order that he may do all this for them ; and all the waste
places of Judea shall be restored.

(26) Ezek. 37: 21—28. The Jews shall all be gathered in, and be-
come one nation, and one King shall reign over them. ‘They shall no
more return to the worship of idols. Dayid shall be king over them,
and be their prince forever. They shall dwell in their own land, and
God will make an everlasting covenant with them, and be their God,
and they shall be his people.

(27) Ezek. 89: 20—28. The. prediction in this passage refers evi-
dently to a more distant and subsequent period of the prosperity of the
church, i. e. a period which follows the great irruption made upon it by
Gog and Magog, whose forces are destroyed by divine interposition ;
comp. Rey. 20:7—10. The amount of the prediction is, as before, that
the Jews should be gathered from all countries, become penitent, and
obtain mercy. God will pour out his Spirit abundantly upon hom; and
he will never more hide his face from them.

Thus we perceive, that all the predictions in Ezekiel are of the same
tenor with those in Jeremiah, and have respect merely to the future lot
of the Jewish nation.

(28) The book of Danrex expands again into somewhat of the like
tenor with that of Isaiah, only it is more brief.and more general. Dan.
2:44. The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, (after the days of
the four kingdoms symbolized by the image seen in Nebuchadnezzar’s
dream,) which shall break in pieces and destroy all other kingdoms, and
stand forever.

(29) Dan. 7:18, 14, 27. To the Son of Man is given a kingdom,
and dominion, and glory. All nations will serve him ; and his dominion
is everlasting. The kingdom under the whole heaven is given to the peo-
ple of the saints of the most high God.

(30) Dan. 9:24—27. This contains the famous passage respecting
the seventy weeks. But as no interpretation of this has yet been given,
so far as I know, which meets all the demands of critical exegesis, or
entirely satisfies the minds of candid and enlightened inquirers, I will
not count upon this passage, on the present occasion.

(31) Dan. 12:1—3. Great trouble, such as never before existed
among the Jewish nation, shall come upon them ; but the people of God
shall be delivered. Many that sleep in the dust shall arise. ‘They that

22. COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

be wise, and turn many to righteousness, shall shine as the brightness of
the firmament, and as the stars forever and ever.*

In the book of Daniel, then, the two predictions, which are sufficiently
plain to be here counted upon, are of the same tenor with those in Isa-
jah, and in the Apocalypse. Different are the representations of the
minor prophets in general.

(82) Hos. 3:4, 5. The children of Israel shall be many days with-
out a prince, without sacrifices and ritual ceremonies, and afterwards
shall return and seek the’ Lord, and David their king, and fear the Lord
in the latter days. ‘

(83) Joel 2: 28—32. God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, even
all the different classes of men from the highest to the lowest, and will
exhibit astonishing signs of his presence and power. ~All that call upon
the name of the Lord shall be saved.

(84) Joel 3: 17—21. No strangers shall annoy or pollute God’s
holy mountain. The land shall flow with milk and wine; while the
countries of all its enemies shall be laid waste.’ Jerusalem and Judah
shall have a permanent residence, and be made clean. This prediction
seems to compare well with Ezek. 39: 20—28, which relates to the times
that are subsequent to the invasion of Gog and Magog. It character-
izes the old age of the world, and therefore can be compared only with -
the season which follows the time of Gog and Magog, as mentioned in
Rey. 20: 8—10.

(35) Amos 9:11—15. The tabernacle of David, which has fallen,
is to be raised up, and the breaches thereof repaired. A season of peace
and great plenty is to follow. The people of God are to be planted in
their own land, and to be no’ more disturbed.

(36) Hag. 2: 6,7. Heaven and earth, the sea and the dry land, are
to be shaken. The Desire of all nations is to come, and fill the house
of the Lord with glory.

(87) Zech. 12: 10—14. Universal penitence and mourning is to:take
place among the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. They
are to. mourn-over Him whom they have pierced.

(88) Zech. 14: 20, 21.- Holiness to the Lord is to be inscribed on

“I hesitate whether this is to be put to the account of Messianic prophecies,
The certain object of it does not, as yet, seem to have been clearly and in all re-
spects satisfactorily made out. The resurrection here mentioned some have
thought to agree with that brought to view as preceding the Millennium, in Rev.
20:4—6. But in the latter case, only Christians, or perhaps only Cinastdiax mar-
tyrs, appear to be the subjects of the first resurrection ; while in Dan, 12: 2, we
findsome to be raised to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt ; = e.
a gencral resurrection seems to be indicated here, while that in Rev. 20: 4d—6 is
to say the most, only partial. More light is needed in respect to both paeanbreu,
in order to obtain full and entire satisfaction. aie ;

WITH OTHER SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES. 23

everything which belongs to his house and to Jerusalem. The Ca-
naanites will no more dwell in ‘the land:.- This prophecy seems to tally
with that in Ezek. 39: 20—28.. Joel 8:17—21. Rev. 20: 8—10, and
to relate to the times which are to jhe the invasion by Gog and Ma-
S08:

(89) Mal. 4: 2—6... The Sun of righteousness will arise with healing
in his wings. Israel shall prosper, and the wicked be trodden down. ~
Elijah, the prophet, will come as the forerunner of the day of the Lord.
He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the wee and of the chil-
dren to the fathers.

Such is the tenor of the predictions in the Old Testament, in relation
to the deeply interesting subject before us. I have not aimed at citing
them all; and I have purposely omitted such \as relate merely to the
person of the Messiah; :because these had been fulfilled when the Apoc-
alypse was written, and could not be there introduced: as predictions of
what was yet to'come. Only such prophecies’ as have relation to the
universal spread of ‘religion; whether among the Jews, or Gentiles, or
both, have a direct bearing on our subject. Of these the number is so
great, as to leave no room for well-grounded: doubt’ in the mind, that
the pious Jews of former ages must have been filled with high expecta-
tions in regard to the Messianic: period, and, like good old Simeon, must
have been’ waiting for the Consolation of Israel, or, like Abraham, they
must have seen the Saviour’s day afar off, and have been glad.

. That some of the predictions cited above, as having relation to the
future extent and glory of the church, have been, and will be, interpre-
‘ted differently from what they are here supposed to mean, every reader
well versed in biblical interpretation will know without admonition. It
is a fact, moreover, that interpreters have not been wanting, who have
even denied that there is any such thing as real prediction, either in the
Old Testament or in the New; and many such are now upon the stage.
But as my present concern is not with the dispute between Rationalists
and Believers in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, so I cannot
here enter into it, nor stop to vindicate my exegesis. It is enough for
my present purpose to say, that I have made such an application of the
prophecies cited, as I believe to be well founded. At all events, the
same principles will apply to them as to the Apocalypse ; and if the one
is prophetic, the other also is so.. The basis of both is evidently the
same, viz. the universal spread and triumph of true religion. The only
seeming exceptions here, are those prophecies which have respect only
to the future conversion and restoration of the whole Jewish people.
But I cannot regard what is said in this respect, as standing at all in
opposition to such predictions as the book of’ Isaiah contains. The

24 COMPARISON OF THE APOCALYPSE

prophets who have spoken only of the restoration of the Jews, had their
reasons, doubtless, for so doing—reasons, one would think, connected
with the circumstances, the time, the place, the relations, in which they
uttered their respective predictions. It would not be safe to conclude,
that because only a reformation in part is expressly predicted in a par-
ticular passage, a universal one is intended to be denied. We can only
conclude from such a phenomenon, that for some good reason the pro-
phets, who uttered the partial predictions, proceeded at that time no fur-
ther.

On the whole, then, nothing can be plainer, in view of what has al-
ready been laid before the reader, than that the main subject of the Apoc-
alypse is not in the least degree a novel one. ‘The costume; the length
and connection of the several series of predictions ; the symbols unceas-
ingly employed; the nature of these symbols in some respects; the con-
nection which all hopes of the future reformation and salvation of a per-
ishing world have with the religion instituted by the Saviour of men ;
and the peculiar development of the kingdom of God in consequence of
this ;—all these are in the main new circumstances, it must be confessed,
and peculiar to the author of the Apocalypse... But these are matters
which are immediately connected with the style and peculiar situation
of the writer, and with the times in which he lived, and are not substan-
tially concerned with the main. and fundamental design. of his whole
composition. In swbstance, there is an entire unity between the Old
Testament prophecies and the Apocalypse, as to the future extent and
completion of the kingdom of God, or the reign of true piety and virtue.
A pious and intelligent Jew, or any sober person familiar with the writ-
ings of the Old Testament, could not overlook the identity of the main
object in both the cases that have just been named.

II. Passages in the New Testament.

But have the New Testament writers exhibited anything of the same
expectations? Has the Saviour himself given any intimation that he
was sent to others, as well as “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ?”
The answer is not difficult ; for it is plain that one heart and soul, in.re-
lation to the subject before us, pervade the writers of the New Testa-
ment and of the Old.

(40) Matt. 8:11." When Jesus had healed the servant of a Roman
centurion, he is reported by the Evangelist to have marvelled at the
faith of this heathen man, and to have said: « Many shall come from
the east. and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Ja-
cob, in the kingdom of God.” In Luke 13: 29, the Evangelist adds :
“From the north and the south,” as well as from the east and the west.

§ 6. ASCENSION OF ISAIAH. 49

i.e. in the seventh or uppermost heaven. Again, in 8:14 the same
angel tells him, that ‘after the death of his body, he shall ascend to the
seventh heaven, and there assume his clothing, and there see other
clothings which are /aid up and numbered.’ The same sentiment is re-
peated in chap. 9: 2, 18, 24, and 11: 40. In his General Remarks, p.
167 seq., Dr. Laurence traces this peculiarity to the Zohar, the most
ancient, as well as the most ample collection of Cabbalistical remains ;
and the passages which he adduces exhibit a similarity of conception in
regard to the heavenly clothing of the saints. But I apprehend the ori-
gin of this idea, in both productions, may be easily traced to a more an-
cient and very direct source. In the Zend Avesta, which seems to have
been written more than five centuries before the Christian era, among
the second order of angels (Izeds) are reckoned the Gahs, to whom
many supplications are directed (see Kleuker’s Zend Avesta, Izeshne,
Ha LIL.) ; and one part of the office of the female Gahs is, to prepare
clothing and lay it up in Gorotman [heaven] for such as are the faithful
servants of Ormusd. With this the souls of the righteous will be cloth-
ed, after the resurrection ; see Kleuker’s Zend. Av. I. p. 142; also An-
hang. I. Th. I. p. 283. The costume of the Ascension and of the Zo-
har, in regard to this matter, seems to be kindred with that of Parsism ;
and this is well known to have influenced the speculations of the Kab-
balists and the Gnostics.

Another remarkable coincidence with the costume of the Apocalypse
deserves special mention. In Ascens. vii. 9 isa passage which represents
the prophet Isaiah, in his rapture, as passing . or firmament, i. e.
the upper region of the atmosphere or the apparent vicinity of the sun
and stars, and as there beholding Samael [Satan] and his angels in fierce
contention, and doing deeds of desperation. Who can refrain from call-
ing to mind Rey. 12: 7—9, where Michael and his angels are represent-
ed as contending évy z@ ovour®, i. e. in the first heaven or upper air,
against Satan and his angels? Or who can refrain from calling to
mind Paul’s “prince of the power of the air [prince of aerial dominion ],
who worketh in the children of disobedience” (Eph. 2: 2), or “the prin-
cipalities, and powers, and rulers of the darkness of this world [of this
benighted world], . . . spiritual wickedness in high places,” i. e. wicked
spirits in elevated, q. d. aerial places, Eph. 6:12? That ‘evil spirits
lived in the atmospheric region, was plainly a popular belief of the first
century, (see Exe. I. Vol. II.) ; and thence Berial and his powers are
to be “dragged down to hell,” when the Lord shall come, according to
Ascens. 4:14. Does not this serve to cast light on those passages of
the New Testament quoted above, and on others of the like tenor ?

I cannot suppress the remark, that chap. xi. of the Ascension appears
manifestly to be copied from the account of the nativity of the Saviour in

VOL. I. 7

+. aoe eee

50 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

Matt. 1: 18—25, and shows, if it be genuine, that in the first century
this was a part of the Gospels. I know of no good reason to doubt its
genuineness. The writer has, indeed, presented a wonderful birth, as
well as conception ; but. this belongs to the manner of the book, and con-
stitutes one of its apoeryphal traits.

On the whole, it is lispossite to read this production with attention,
without feeling that one’s circle of acquaintance with oriental imagery is
enlarged thereby, and also with the opinions and speculations of curious
minds in the first age of Christianity. He is not to be envied as a
critic, who can peruse such a book without the most lively interest.

[The reader who wishes further and more particular information, is referred to
the Ascensio Isaiae Vatis, a Ricardo Laurence, LL.D. Oxon. 1819; Gesenius
Einleit, in Esaiam, § 9, p. 45 seq.; Liicke, Einleit. in Apoc. § 16, p. 125 seq. and
1. Nitzsch on two Fragments of the "Avafatexdy "Eoaiov, in the Studien und
Kritiken, II. p. 209 seq. The fragments were discovered by A. Maio, in the
Vatican library, and published in 1823 in his Nova Collectio Seriptt. Vet., Pars IT.
p. 208. Nitzsch has exhibited these, and made, at the close of his communication,
some highly acute and critical remarks on the whole production. A Latin trans-
lation of the Vision or second part of the work, was mentioned by Sixtus Senen-
sis in his Biblioth. Sancta, Lib. 11. p. 59, as printed at Venice under the title of
Visio Admirabilis Esaiae Prophetae ; which, after disappearing for a long time,
has at last been discovered in the hbrary at Miinchen and at Copenhagen. . In
this version, chap. xi. 2—21 of the Ethiopic version is wanting. The quotations
of this book by the fathers, may be found in Laurence’s General Remarks; anda
brief account of them, both in Gesenius and Liicke.]

(b) The Book of Enoch.

Several circumstances conspire to throw more than ordinary interest
around this apocryphal production. From ancient times, it has been be-
lieved that Jude has made a quotation from it, in vs. 14, 15 of his brief
epistle. Some of the earliest fathers, moreover, have appealed to it even
in such a way, as to show that they regarded it as entitled to a rank
scarcely, if at all, inferior to that of an acknowledged canonical book.

In the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, one of the most respecta-
able of the apocryphal productions, and one which, beyond all-reasona-
ble doubt, belongs to the latter part of the first century or to the begin-
ning of the second,* the book of Enoch is the subject of express appeal
and of citation no less than nine times, besides some other probable al-
lusions to it. The mode of appeal shows the weight of authority attach-
ed, by the writer of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, to the book
now under examination. In Test. Sim. c. 5, he says: Eagan & Av. Lee
QuntyoL reaps Evoy, 0 Ott, x. t.4.3 in Test. Lev. c. 10, xadadg megueyet
BiBhos Evay tov dixoéov; and the ‘like j in ec. 14. c. 16. Test, Dan. c. 5,

* So Nitzsch has satisfactorily shown, in his De Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum,
Lib. Vet. Test. Pseudepigrapho, p.-17 seq.

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 51

Test. Jud. ¢. 18. Test. Zeb. c. 8. Nepht. c. 4. Benj. c.9. In Test. Reub.
é& 5, there is a plain reference to that part of the book of Enoch, which
exhibits the seduction of women before the flood by some of the apos-
tate angels, viz. Enoch, ch. vii. viii.

The manner and object of these appeals leaves no room to doubt, that
the author of the Testaments regarded and cited the book of Enoch as
one of canonical authority, or, to say the least, as one whose decision,
or declaration, or prediction, was to be looked upon as eredible and au-
thoritative. And inasmuch as the author of the Testaments has thus
quoted and alluded to the book of Enoch, near the close of the first cen-
tury or at the beginning of the second, it follows of course that the lat-
ter must have already been in circulation, and obtained credit among
the expected readers of the Testaments; consequently we are bound, at
all events, to assign a period as early as the first century to the com-
position of the book of Enoch.

So Justin Martyr (Apol. Brev. p. 92, edit. ex. Cong. Sanct. Mauri)
exhibits a passage respecting the apostate angels, who seduced women
before the flood and in various ways corrupted the world, which passage
beyond all question is built on the book of Enoch, chap. vii—ix, although
he does not specifically name the book. Irenaeus refers to the punish-
ment of angels who thus sinned (Cont. Haeres. IV. 30, Massuet 16), and
speaks of Enoch as “conservatus usque nunc testis judicii Dei,” by
which he must mean that the words of Enoch, as contained in his so
named prophecy, are still preserved. Tertullian, in Lib. de Idol. ¢. 4
and 15, also in his De Cultu Fem. c. 10, ap eals to Enoch, as “the an-
cient prophet Enoch,” and cites some things which he declares the Holy
Spirit to have announced by him. Again, in De Habitu Fem. ¢. 2. 3,
he argues at length in favour of the divine inspiration and authority of
the book; on grounds, indeed, which will not abide the test of scrutiny,
but still he is evidently much in earnest, and accuses the Jews of having
rejected the authority of this book, because it contained certain things in
it respecting Christ. He also concedes, “ scripturam Enoch... non
recipt a quibusdam ;” i. e. some Christians reject it, or do not admit it
into the canon of the sacred books. He declares, however, that it is a
profitable book for Christians; and that we have warrant enough for
believing, that ‘every writing adapted to edification is inspired of God,’
[alluding to 2 Tim. 3:16]. Finally, in order to’ settle the question of
authority, he adds : “ Accedit, quod Enoch apud Judam Apostolum tes-
timonium possidet.”

The book of Enoch (ce. 97:7, 8) is also cited by him in his De Idolo-
lat. c. 4, in almost exactly the same words that a literal Latin transla-
tion of the Ethiopic copy of this book would exhibit. The general iden-
tity of the book of Enoch, as used by Tertullian, with that which has

52 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

come down to us through the medium of the Ethiopic, seems therefore
to be beyond any reasonable question.

Clement of Alexandria (c. A. D. 200), refers to the book of Enoch
and quotes from it, (Exioy. zeoq. pp- 801, 808, ed. Sylb. and in many
other places) ; but he expresses no opinion as to its authority.

Origen frequently refers to the book of Enoch; e. g. Cont, Cels. p.
267, ed. Spencer; zeot deyar, IV. cap. ult. et L c. 3; Homil. 28 in
Num. XXXIV. In some of these passages he expressly disclaims all
canonical authority of the book; but, out of deference to the opinion of
some who had a high regard for it, he says once, on an occasion of ap-
pealing to it: “If any one pleases to receive it as a sacred book ;” in
Johann. p. 132, ed. Huet. ;

Jerome mentions the book, and calls it apocryphal ; Catal. Scriptt.
Eccl. c. 4. Comm. in Tit. i. Comm. in Psalm. 132: 3. Augustine
stands in the same position, rejecting as fabulous many of the legends
in the book of Enoch; De Civ. Dei, XV. 23. X VILL. 38.

From the time of Augustine down to the ninth century little or noth-
ing appears to have been known or said of the book of Enoch. But,
near the beginning of this century, G. Syncellus, a monk of Constanti-
nople, wrote a Chronographia in Greek, in which he made very copious
extracts from that book. The first two of them include ch. vii—x. 15;
the other one begins with ch. xv. 8, and ends with ch. xvi. 1.* These
are so copious, and withal so much in conformity with the book of Enoch
which has come down to us through the medium of the Ethiopic, that
no doubt can remain as to the identity of the two works.

It seems to have been the prevailing opinion among the ancient Chris-
tian fathers, that the apostle Jude, in vs. 14, 15 of his epistle, had quo-
ted. a passage from the book of Enoch. Even those who condemn the
book as apocryphal, admit this, and endeavour to account for it in some
way satisfactory to their own minds.- In modern times, an intense in-
terest has occasionally been awakened, in disputes about the canon of
the New Testament, respecting this alleged quotation ‘of Jude. The
book of Enoch, therefore, had long been eagerly sought after and wished
for ; but in vain, until a recent traveller in Abyssinia discovered this cu-
rious relic there, in the Ethiopic language and incorporated by the
Abyssinians with their books of the Old Testament.t ;

* The reader will find these extracts in Dr. Laurence’s Book of Enoch, printed
at large in the Appendix. He will also find them in Syncellus, first edited by
Scaliger, and recently by Dindorf at Bonn, 2 Vol. 8vo. ; they are exhibited, like-
wise, in Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. V. Test. I. p. 179 seq.

t That traveller was James Bruce, well known to the English world by his five
volumes of Travels. He brought with him from Ethiopia ‘or Abyssinia, three
copies of the book of Enoch ; one of which he gave to the Bodleian library at Ox-

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 53

Respecting the contents of the book thus introduced to the reader I
proceed to give some account, as briefly, however, as the nature of the
case will admit. It is no easy task, to give a synopsis of contents
which are so multifarious and diverse; and withal, the difficulty is much
augmented by the want of unity in the book, by apparent transpositions
of several parts of it, and not improbably by the omission of some things
which once belonged to it.

‘The book begins, like those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets,
with a superseription, in which Enoch is first spoken of in the third person; but
after a few lines the same personage goes on to speak in the first. “ The bless-
ing of Enoch upon the elect‘and righteous, who were to exist in the time of trouble,
rejecting all the wicked and the ungodly,” is given in the inscription as the gene-
ral object of the whole book; and this agrees tolerably well with the contents at
large. 3
In like manner as in the prophets, Daniel, Zechariah, and John, angels are
represented as the guides and interpreters of the seer. What he sees has, as he
avers, respect “ to a distant period,” i. e. to the days of the Messiah.

That which is so summarily hinted in the inscription, with respect to the gen-

ford, another. to the royal library at Paris, and a third he kept for himself. From
the copy at Oxford, Dr. Laurence, late Regius Professor of Hebrew there, gave
to the world, in A. D. 1821, a translation into English, with Notes, and a Prelim-
inary Dissertation. From this a knowledge of the contents of the singular book
in question has been diffused over Europe.—De Sacy also made a translation into
Latin of a small part of the book, (from the copy in the Paris Library,) which he
published in the Mag. Encyc. I. p. 382 seq. In 1833, Prof. A. G. Hoffmann of
Jena translated the first half of Laurence’s English version into German, and
published it with exegetical notes. Hoffmann had no opportunity for consulting
the original, as to this part of his work. But subsequently to this, the celebrated
traveller, Dr. Ruppell, brought another copy of the whole work from Abyssinia.
Furnished with this, Hoffmann made a version fromthe Ethiopic for Vol. II. of
his Commentary, in which he has, by his superior knowledge of the oriental lan-
guages, made many corrections of Laurence, (mostly minor ones), and expended
great labour upon the exegetical Notes. Inman Excursus, he has reviewed a re-
cent work in England, by the Rev. Edward Murray, entitled Enoch restitutus, in
which the English author has endeavored to show, that the present book of Enoch
is fragmentary, being made up of several different writings, and that the book
quoted by Jude (vs. 14, 15) was a very different and much smaller book than the
present. The superior knowledge of the subject, which Hoffmann possessed, easi-
ly enabled him to show how unsafe in criticism, and also how illogical, the lead-
ing positions of Murray are. It needs something more than confident assumption
and unrestrained imagination, to criticise on an obscure work of antiquity. The
second Vol. of Hoffmann was published in 1838. Both volumes make 960 pages.
They are the fruit of widely extended and patient study, and generally satisfy the
mind of an inquirer, who seeks to understand the book of Enoch. On some points
of higher criticism, the commentator shows more attachment to previously
adopted views, than is satisfactory to an impartial reader; sometimes (not often)
even cashiering the text, where it stands in his way. On some of these points, I
feel myself unable to accord with him; but thanks are due to him for the light
that he has poured in upon this dark and neglected domain of sacred literature.

a’ &

54 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

eral design of the book, is, in the immediate sequel, more fully expressed : ‘ God
will hereafter reveal himself on earth; all shall be filled with terror ; the earth
shall be burned up and all things in it perish ; but to the righteous peace and
mercy will be given, they shall all be blessed, and the glory of God shine upon
them.’ Then follows the passage (ch. ii.) which is quoted in Jude, vs. 14, 15; to
which the attention of the reader will be particularly directed in the sequel.

The discerning reader will here find the same germ as in the Apoca-
lypse. Views like this are frequently repeated in the book of Enoch ;
which serves to show on what the mind of the writer was most intent,
and how much resemblance in some respects there is, between his prin-
cipal aim and that of John. Both wrote for the consolation of suffering
saints.

The writer goes on: ‘ All nature obeys, without transgressing, the ordinances
of God; the stars, the seasons, the clouds, the trees, the rivers, and seas, all obey
their appropriate laws ; only the wicked disobey, and on them no peace shall come,
but eternal curses. To the righteous, however, shall be given light, peace, joy,
wisdom, freedom from condemnation, long life, and everlasting happiness.’ Ch.
iii—vi.

Such, then, is the theme of the book proposed by the writer. He be-
gins his exhibition of the evidence, designed to establish his positions,
with an account of transactions before the flood, and during the days of
Enoch, ;

‘A number of angels:(200 according to ch. 7: 7) become enamoured with some
of the daughters of men, and, by the persuasion of Samyaza their leader, they en-
ter into an agreement, sanctioned by oath on mount Hermon, to cohabit with
them. This agreement they execute, teaching their paramours, at the same time,
sorcery, divination, the arts of luxury and ornamental dress, and also of fabrica-
ting dyes, jewels, and instruments of war. These women, in the sequel, brought
forth giants [p°>°£2] 300 cubits high, who devoured all the productions of man
which were fitted for food, and. then, at last, fell upon men themselves.’ Ch. vii.
Vill.

‘The good guardian angels of men now make complaint to the Almighty, in
regard to these outrages and violations of the laws of men and angels. An angel
is immediately sent by the Most High to Noah, in order to tell him of the deluge
which should come upon the earth. Raphael is also commissioned to bind Aza-
ziel, one of the leading apostate angels, hand and foot, and cast him into darkness
and into the desert of Dudael. The earth is to be punished for its vickettiens,
but not utterly destroyed. Gabriel is commissioned to go and excite the ginite,
the mongrel breed of angels and women, to mutual slaughter. Michael is cali:
manded to go and seize Samyaza, with his apostate fellows, and bind them for
seventy generations under the earth, even to the day of judgment; also to com-
plete the destruction of the giants,’ Ch. ix. x. 1—20. Then followsa description
of a kind of millennial state, which is to succeed the destruction of the wicked
(10: 21—29) ; ‘ righteousness and equity shall abound ; the saints will live each
to beget a thousand children ; the earth will yield, in overflowing abundance, all
that ministers to want or luxury ; all men will be righteous, all worship God in
truth ; all crime will cease ; no more shall any deluge come ; and everything in
which men engage will be blessed.” | :

*

Pay

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 55

Enoch is now commissioned by good angels, to go and announce to
the apostate angels their doom. This commission he executes, and they
all become terrified, and beseech him to intercede for them. He con-
sents, and writes down a memorial for them ; but while he is reading it,
he falls asleep, and is taught therein by a vision, that their doom admits
of no change.

The substance of that vision is as follows: ¢ The prophet is caught up into hea-
ven, where he sees a spacious palace, surrounded by crystal walls and vibrating
flames of fire, and guarded by cherubim of fire. Ona throne therein, which was
surrounded with flaming splendour, One great in glory sat, on whom even angels
could not look without being dazzled.’ Ch. xii—xiv. ‘ By the exalted Being on
this throne, Enoch is commanded to go and announce to the apostate angels their
doom. The crime which they have committed is against the laws of their spir-
itual nature, and admits of no pardon. The giants, their ill-begotten progeny,
shall beget only evil demons, who will commit all kinds of violence and oppres-
sion, and shall at last miserably perish by mutual slaughter. No metcy is to be
obtained for them. Their flesh is to perish before the judgment that is coming
upon them, and until the consummation of all things. No peace can ever be given
to apostate angels and their offspring.’ Ch. xv. xvi.

Thus concludes that part of the book which has special reference to
the case of the apostate angels ; and this may appropriately be named
the first part of the book of Enoch; or, if a division of the whole be
made by books, (as it was in the days of Syncellus who quotes éx B:p-
diov mewtov), this may be called the first book.

The second Boox extends from ch. xyil. to ch. xxxv. ‘The prophet is eleva-
ted to the top of a lofty mountain in some distant region, whence he sees the trea-
sures of lightning and thunder, the fiery ocean in which the sun sets, and the
tivers of fire which empty into it; also the mountains of gloom whence winter
issues, the great abyss the source of all the streams of water, and the treasuries of
the winds which are agents in all the motions of the heavenly bodies. All these
were seen in the West.’ Ch. xvii. xviil. 1—7.

‘Next the Seer passes to the South. Here are six mountains formed of resplen-
dent and precious stones, and blazing with fire. On the other side of them he
sees an extended desert, with a great lake, and fountains of water. Over these
fountains stood columns of fire, which moved up and down; over them was no
firmament, and under them no solid ground. Here seven stars were imprisoned,
which had transgressed the command of God, in respect to keeping their appoint-
ed movements. This is the place where the apostate angels appointed leaders in
the matter of their transgression; and afterwards the same angels led men astray,
into idolatry and other crimes, for which they shall be judged.’ Ch. xviii. xix.

‘ Passing on nearer to this tremendous place, the Seer asks the angel, who ac-
companied him, to explain the ground of that severe punishment which the stars
suffered. The answer is, that they had transgressed their laws.’ Ch. xxi, 1—3.

The writer, like Origen and several of the early Fathers, believed
the stars to be animated, or at least to be under the direction of anima-
ted angelic beings. Hence the gwilt with which they are charged. This

2

56 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

seems to be mentioned by him, in order to inspire his readers with dread
of transgressing God’s holy laws.

‘ Going thence the angel conducts him to a dreadful place, glittering with col-
umns of fire, which he declares to be “ the prison of the [sinning] angels.” Ch.
xxi.4—6. Thence he goes to Elysium or the region of the blessed, surrounded by
mighty walls of rock. Hither the souls of the dead, i. e, of all the righteous, will
come and dwell until the day of judgment. This place is divided into four spaces,
by a chasm between the first and second, water between the second and third, and
light between the third and fourth. So is it, also, with the souls of the wicked,
which, in their place (under ground), are separated until the judgment-day, when
they will be punished forever ; there is no escape from their prison.’ Chap. xxii.

‘From this place the prophet is rapt into another, where he sees seven shining
mountains, adorned with precious stones, and with odoriferous trees, one of which
exceeded all the trees of Eden. The fruit of this tree will be given to the right-
eous afier the judgment, and they will live forever by means of it, free from all
pain and sorrow. On the seventh of these mountains, overtopping all the rest,
the Lord of Glory will descend, when he shall visit the earth to reward the right-
eous. Chap.xxiv. Thence the prophet comes to the middle of the earth [Jeru-
salem], where he sees a holy mountain [Zion], with water on the eastern side
flowing to the south [the brook Kidron]; also another mountain [that of Olives]
on the east. Water also ran from the west. [from the fountain of Siloam], and
another mountain was on the south. Among these were vallies, and precipices
with trees; also an accursed valley [viz. that of Hinnom]. Here blasphemers are
punished, and in the judgment they shall be made an example of retribution.’
Ch. xxv. xxvi.

‘From this place the prophet is carried to a mountain in the desert [perhaps Si-
nail, full of trees, water, and cataracts ; thence to another place to the eastward
of this, which was full of choice, odoriferous, and medicinal trees; from this he
sees another place, with plenty of never failing water and goodly trees; then he
sees another mountain containing trees loaded with the most sweet-smelling fruit,
from which water flowed like nectar; and on this another mountain full of trees
with fruit of surpassing odour.’ Chap. xxvii—xxx.

‘Thence, surveying “the entrances of the north,” he perceived seven other
mountains, replete with new and odoriferous trees. Passing these, and going over
the Erythraean Sea [Gulf of Akaba?], far beyond it he beheld the garden of
righteousness [Eden], with trees numerous, large, fragrant, beautiful, and among
them the tree of knowledge, like a species of the tamarind tree. Raphael informs
him, that this was the tree of which his ancient progenitors ate. Ch. xxxi.
Thence he is conducted toward the extremities of the earth, where large beasts
and birds of various forms are seen; and to the eastward of these he comes to the
ends of the earth and the heavens; and there he sees the gates of heaven open,
whence issued all the stars, which, by the help of his guide, he numbered and re-
corded, together with their times and seasons. Thence he goes to the extremities
of the north, where he sees the gates whence issue the northern winds, cold, hail,
frost, dew, and rain. Thence he is taken to the gates at the western extremity ;
and thence to those of the south, from which issue dew, rain, and wind. Thence
he goes back again to the east, in order to review the courses of the stars.’ Ch.
XXXIV—XXXV.

Here begins a new vision, “the vision of wisdom,” to be communi-
cated in 103 parables, [De Sacy reads three ; and only three are con-

ar

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 57

tained in the book]. It extends from ch. xxxvii. to ch. lxx, and con-
stitutes by far the most interesting and important part of the book, in-
asmuch as here the whole of the author’s Christology is displayed. The
usual appellation here of the divine Being, is Lord of spirits, which oc-
curs scores of times.

First parasie. ‘The time of judgment and of the separation of the righteous
and wicked is coming, when endless woe will be to the wicked; but peace and
happiness to the righteous. ‘The holy and elect race” shall descend from hea-
ven and dwell with men. The prophet is then taken up to heaven, and sees the
habitation of the saints with the angels. Their number is countless, and they
continually bless and praise God. He earnestly desires to remain there. My-
riads stand before the Lord of spirits; and on the four sides of him are four arch-
angels, who in different ways address him, praising him, and supplicating for suc-
cess in the discharge of the different tasks assigned there. Ch. xxxvili—xl. Af-
ter this the secret places of paradise are shown to Enoch, and there he sees the
receptacles of all the various agents in nature, thunder, wind, dew, hail, etc.;
also of the moon with all her phases, and of the stars with all their picdolanae
These last shine with no changing or borrowed light.” Ch. xli—xliv.

PARABLE THE SECOND. This parable specially exhibits the author’s
Christology. ‘The title of the parable (ch. 45: 1) gives us to understand,
that it respects those “who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and
who will be judged and punished by the ELuctr Onz,” [the Messiah].

‘The Elect One shall dwell in the midst of the righteous, changing the face of
heaven and earth; excluding the wicked from them. The Ancient of Days will
‘give to the Elect One full power to subdue all opposition, to humble all kings and
princes who resist him, and expel the Lord of glory from their temples.—The
blood of the righteous shall be avenged ; the supplications of the holy ones on ac-
count of their blood, viz. that it may be avenged, willbe heard. The Son or man
is invoked before the Lord of spirits, and was invoked before the creation of the sun
and stars. All shall worship him. Tur Execr Onk was witn Gop BEFORE

HE WORLD was. ‘The righteous will he protect; the wicked will he cast into
the fire. The glory and power of the Faces One are eternal; he will judge secret
things.’ Ch. xlv—xlviii.

‘The saints shall live in glory; the wicked be overwhelmed with evil; but
space for repentance shall be given; and those who do not repent shall never find
mercy. The earth and Hades shall deliver up their dead to be judged; the right-
eous shall be separated from the wicked, and filled with joy and peace.’ Ch. xlix. 1.

¢ Enoch is now transported once more to the West, by a whirlwind, There he
sees six mountains of different metals, all of which are to be appropriated to the
use of the Messiah, [comp. Is. 45: 9, ‘I will give thee the treasures of darkness.’’]
All of these shall dissolve at his coming, and no more use be made of them to
fabricate arms of opposition. Ch li.—A deep valley is also seen there by the pro-
phet, and all men bring their presents and offerings thither [to propitiate the Mes-
siah]; but such as have filled their hands with iniquity and the fruits of rapacity
shall perish, while the righteous endure forever. There the angels of punishment
were preparing their deadly weapons to smite sinners, and to destroy kings and
the powerful ones of the earth; but the righteous shall be relieved from the vexa-
tion of si . Ch. lii. Thence Enoch is brought to another part of the earth,

VOL. , 8

58 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

to a deep valley burning with fire, [the valley of Hinnom, see chap. xxviJ. To
this the kings and the mighty, who had been oppressors, are brought; and here
they are bound with fetters of iron that have no weight;’ [comp. chains of dark-
ness, Jude v. 6. 2 Pet. 2: 4]. Ch. liti. :

‘Here comes in a paragraph which seems like an interpolation, it being a de-
scription merely of the flood in Noah’s time. It extends from 53: 7 to 54:5. ¢ Af
ter this, the prophet sees in a valley, the sinning angels in chains, and also their
paramours and offspring, [the giants]—Subsequent to this the princes of the Par-
thians and Medes shall come and remove kings, and tread upon the land of the
elect. Their course, however, shall be arrested; but the people of the land will
be destroyed by mutual slaughter, and the mouth of Hades shall be much en-
larged. Ch. liv. After this Enoch sees another army of chariots coming upon
the wind, from the east, west, and south, [the invading Romans]. Their noise
shakes the whole earth. Ch. ly.

Tuirp Parasie. ‘Peace shall be to the saints, and God will be their ever-
lasting light.—The secrets of the lightning are now shown to Enoch; also of the
thunder; both when they are for a blessing and for a curse. Ch. Ivi. lvii. In the
500th year of Enoch’s life the heavens and the earth shook violently, the Ancient
of Days was seen on his throne of glory, surrounded by myriads of angels; the
time of judgment and punishment, as well as of reward, comes; to the righteous
Leviathan and Behemoth are given for their feast ; while the wicked are severely
punished. Ch. lviii.

¢ Another angel now proceeds with the prophet, and discloses to him all the se-
crets of the agencies of nature, e. g. of the winds, moon, lightning, ebb and flow
of the sea, mist, rain, darkness, light, etc. Ch. lix.—Angels go to the north, with
measures for the righteous, that they may be brought to dwell with the elect, and
be able to measure or scan their portions and all the secrets of nature. All unite
to bless, praise, and glorify the Lord and his Elect One. The Cherubim, Sera-
phim, and Ophannim, and “all the angels of the Lords, viz. of Taz Erect OxE
AND OF THE OTHER PowER, who was upon the earth over the water on that day,”
bless and praise him—all holy beings in the universe shall bless and praise the
Lord of spirits. Ch. lx. The. Lord of spirits summons kings and princes to com-
prehend, if they can, his Elect One. He seats himself upon the throne of judg-
ment, and brings the ungodly to trial. Anguish will seize upon the wicked, when
they behold the Son of woman sitting on the throne of his glory. All shall glorify
«Him who has dominion over all things, Him who was concealed,” viz. the Son
of man, ‘who from the beginning existed in secret ;”’ all the elect shall stand be-
fore him, all kings and princes fall down and worship him. “« They shall fix their
hopes on this Son of man, and pray to him, and petition to him for mercy.’ But all
_ the ungodly shall be dragged away to punishment, while the righteous shall be
made joyful before him, and dwell with the Son of man forever. The saints, who
have been raised from the earth, will be clothed with the garment of life. This
garment is with the Lord of spirits. Ch. lxi. Tyrant kings will then be punish-
ed, that rest may be given to the saints for a time. They shall praise God for the
rest thus given to them. Oppressors cannot find this rest. They are constrained
to acknowledge that God’s judgments are just. They shall be thrust out from
the presence of the Son of man. The apostate angels, who have seduced men,
will be punished by him.’ Ch. Lxii. Ixiii, ,

Chs. Ixiv—Ixvii. contain a vision of Noah respecting the flood; which
is plainly interpolated here ; or at least inserted in a wrong nee Tt
; m

$6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 59

has respect to Enoch, only inasmuch as Noah repairs to him for the ex-
planation of things seen by the former in a vision.

‘In ch. Ixviii. the names of twenty-one apostate angels are given, who were
active in misleading the others, and also their various characters and offences.
All shall be judged by the Son of man, and his word shall be all-powerful in pres-
ence of the Lord of spirits.—Here, it is said, ends the third parable; but ch. lxix.
lxx. are plainly a continuation consisting of homogeneous matter. The prophet
sees the Son of man exalted by, all on earth and in heaven. After being lifted up to
the heaven of heavens, Enoch there sees the pellucid and glittering palace of the
Ancient of Days, and also angels, archangels, and saints, worshipping before him.
He falls down and worships. He is commended and blessed, and a promise of
perpetual peace and happiness is made to him.’ Ch. ]xvii—lxx.

Chaps. lxxi—Ixxxi. exhibit the author’s peculiar system of astrono-
my or astrology. They respect the sun, moon, winds, mountains of
frost, the parent-fountains of water, ete.; and they treat of all the phe-
nomena, and changes of these. ‘ They are a most singular exhibition of
ignorance in matters of science combined with a kind of acuteness, and of
ideas resulting merely from ocular inspection mixed with speculative
reasoning upon the nature of things. It would be a welcome contribu-
tion to the history of astronomy, if some such man as Ideler would be-
come a commentator upon this unique system of nature. No one with
acquisitions less than his, in this department of science, would be able,
J think, to unravel the intricacies of this section. Hoffman has done
much to clear up its obscurities, but not all which is desirable. In ch.
Ixxxi. Enoch commands Methuselah his son to preserve with care all
which he has written down respecting these matters.

¢ Other visions of Enoch are also communicated to Methuselah. ,He was pre-
monished, in vision, of the flood; and his father Mahalaleel enjoined it upon him
to intercede for the earth. His prayer is accepted, in regard to a small remnant
of men.’ Ch. Ixxxii. lxxxiii.

¢ Another dream of Enoch discloses, under the imagery of black and white cows
and bulls, the history of Adam’s posterity ; of the apostate angels, as interming-
ling with them; of the punishment of the antediluvians; of Noah’s ark, the flood,
etc., as related in the Scriptures. The history of Moses, Saul, David, Solomon,
etc., is continued under the symbol of sheep.’ This is carried on, although in a
very obscure and unattractive manner, down to a period near the Christian era.
One can hardly recognize the author of the preceding part of the book in these
chapters. Some of these representations are not only obscure, but parts of them
are absolutely loathsome. Ch. lxxxiv—Ixxxix. For the most part, however, Hoff-
mann has given satisfactory explanations.

Ch. xc. contains ‘an address of Enoch to all his posterity, in which he gives
them moral warning and exhortation. Ch. xci. is made up of the like matter.
Ch. xcii—civ. contain addresses of Enoch to his children respecting “ the elect of
the world, the plants of righteousness.’’ A period of ten weeks is named, into
which the whole course of time is distributed. In the succession of these, the
author refers to the deluge, to Abraham, to the law, to the temple of Solomon, to
Elijah, to oo captivity, and to the corrupt Jews in their exile. The

60 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

eighth week is one of righteousness in which judgment shall be executed upon
oppressors ; and in it the house of the great King shall be built up ; (which pro-
bably describes the Maccabaean period). In the ninth week the judgment of
righteousness shall be revealed, and the world prepared for destruction ; (a gene-
ric view of the Messianic period). On the seventh day of the tenth reek: ever-
lasting judgment shall be executed on the apostate angels, and a new heaven and
a new earth appear. Who is capable of comprehending the works of God, or
who can count the number of the stars, etc. ?”

Ch. xciii. contains an exhortation to righteousness, with a desctigition and re-
proof of the ways of the wicked. Chaps. xciv—x¢ix. contain denunciations of
the wicked, and particularly of oppressors and persecutors. ‘This is by far the
noblest moral part of the book, and approaches near the paraenetic strains of the
Old Testament prophets. It evidently flows from a mind deeply sympathizing
with the suffering and persecuted righteous. ‘In the hands of the Most High
are all the elements, and all things; who can resist him? Ch.c. Who will
dare to murmur against him? God will be terrible to the wicked; the righteous,
after all their persecution and sufferings, will enjoy eternal peace. By a most
solemn oath, assurance is given of this. The sufferings of the righteous are de-
scribed. The righteous are exhorted to persevere, and repeated assurance of rich
reward is given. To them shall books be given, books of joy and great wisdom
—books in which they believe and rejoice, [New Testament ?]. Enoch’s posteri-
ty shall instruct men in those days; God and his Son will forever hold commu-
nion with them. Ch. cii—civ. In ch. cy. Enoch again reverts to the antediluvian
period, and tells us of the extraordinary appearance of Noah, when first born ; so
extraordinary that Lamech, his father, repaired to Knoch in order to know the
meaning of it. Enoch tells him that:a flood is coming, and that his child [Noah]
is destined to survive it, because of his holy character.’

¢ Another book also Enoch wrote, respecting the latter days. Flaming fire will
consume all the ungodly and oppressors. But those who have laboured and suf-
fered in their bodies, and have loved God, renounced the world with its riches,
and given their bodies to torment, and been tried by the Lord, shall obtain a rich
reward.’ Ch. ev.

The whole work ends with a wish, that “the benediction of Enoch’s

prayer, and the gift of his appointed period, may be with his beloved ;
Amen.”

It would not comport with my present object to pursue a critical ex-
amination of this book, in all its details. This would furnish matter for
a volume. But so far as this production has a bearing on the spirit of
the age in which it was written, and can be brought into comparison
with the Apocalypse, it well deserves a serious notice. A few remarks
must be made on (a) The place where the book was written. (6) The
time when. (c) Its probable author. (d) On that part of its contents
which has respect to the sufferings of the righteous, and also to the future
period of their prosperity and glory.

(a) Place where the book was written. By this is meant, hot the par-
ticular district. or town wherein it was actually Seaeced, but the cown-
try to which its author probably belonged.

§ 6.. BOOK OF ENOCH. 61

There can be no good ground for hesitation, that its author was an
oriental man ; by which I here mean, a man not of western, but of mid-
dle Asia; most probably of some part of the ancient Media, or of its
tributary provinces high up between the Caspian and the Black Seas.
In chap. 71: 18, 19, he speaks of the day as comprising eighteen parts,
twelve of which, at a certain time of the year, are light, and six dark ;
i. e. the day is sixteen hours long (as we express it), and the night eight
hours. This could never happen in Palestine ; inasmuch as the lati-
tude is too near the equator to admit of so much inequality. The coun-
try, where the days are exactly of the length here named, must be not
far from the 49th degree of latitude ; and of course, strictly considered,
the country must be high up, even above the Caspian and Euxine Seas.
But inasmuch as the author is describing the complete course of the sun,
and all the gradations of day and night which (so far as he knows) this
occasions, it is not necessary to suppose that he lived in the very place
where the.day might be twice as long as the night, but only in such a
part of the world as that he would probably come to a knowledge of
such a fact. Ancient Media or Persia, where astrology flourished so
much and so long among the Magi, would therefore be the most proba-
ble region which we can assign to him. On the supposition that he was
a Hebrew, (of which there can be no doubt, as we shall see in the se-
quel), there is no difficulty in finding a home for him in that region.
So early as 721 B. C. the king of Assyria carried away a great portion
of the ten tribes into “the cities of the Medes,’ 2 K. 17:6. Among
those who assembled at. the feast of Pentecost, soon after the resurrec-
tion of the Saviour, were ‘‘ Parthians, Medes and Elamites” [ Persians ],
most or all, no doubt, of Jewish origin. Many thousands of Jews, we
well know, were scattered over all parts of middle Asia, who had be-
come so attached to the countries whither they had been transported,
that they never returned from their exile, even after permission for re-
turn was given.

What makes much for the supposition now in question is, that
throughout the whole book, light, fire, splendour, radiance, are almost
everywhere made so conspicuous. ‘This seems to indicate, that the au-
thor had been brought up in a country whose. religion was Parsism.
One needs but to open the Zend-Avesta, in order to feel that the very
basis, and (one might almost say) a great portion of the essential ingre-
dients of Parsism, consist of light and splendour. Oromasd himself
seems to have been regarded by the Magi as being formed from Ur-
licht, or (as we must express it in our own language) parent-light. One
circumstance in particular may be noted, where the author adverts to
views respecting the other world, which in all probability he had uncon-
sciously obtained from those who surrounded him. In 61: 18, he speaks

62 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

of the saints, after the resurrection, as being “ clothed with the garment —
of life’ He then adds: “That garment of life is with the Lord of
spirits, in whose presence your garment shall not wax old, nor your glo-
ry diminish.” The idea of ‘garments being laid up or kept in heaven
for the clothing of the righteous,’ is familiar in the system of Zoroaster,
where the Gahs, (female Izeds or angels of the second order), are rep-
resented as employed in fabricating garments which are kept in store
for the righteous. Unconsciously the author seems to. have.intermin-
gled this peculiarity of Parsism with his own conceptions ; for the Scrip-
tures, which present us often with the idea of splendid costume as ap-
propriate to the righteous in a future world (Rev. 3: 4,5, 18. 4: 4. 6:11.
7:9, 18), lack the peculiar trait to which I have just adverted. The
Ascension of Isaiah abounds in this: peculiarity (see p. 49) ; and the
reader by consulting the passage referred to, will find the evidences of it
placed before him, with references also to the Zend-Avesta. In my re-
marks on the Ascension of Isaiah, in the paragraph to which reference
has just been made, I have stated my reasons for supposing, that the au-
thor of that work was a Hebrew of Middle Asia. The cast of the com-
position in the present case, in many respects, leads me to a like view
of the country of the author. I acknowledge that the ground is not en-
tirely certain ; for a writer of western Asia could exhibit the like traits.
No one of the circumstances mentioned would be sufficient of itself to
establish my position; but a combination of them all leads me to the
feeling, that this position is probably correct. It seems probable, that
neither the author of Enoch nor of the Ascension of Isaiah would design-
edly introduce Parsism ; but if they were educated in a country where the
common idiom of the people had embodied it in their language and
modes of expression, it would be difficult to avoid some developments of
it.

Licke suggests, that some things in the book favour the idea that it
was written in Egypt, p. 64. But I find nothing in it which leads to
this, unless it be its astronomical speculations ; which, however, may
quite as well be attributed to the East, as to Egypt. The habitual
reckoning of the year at 364 days, shows that the author belonged to a
country which is neither in extreme western Asia nor eastern Africa.
It remains as yet unknown whence this reckoning comes. The locali-
ties, in parts of the book, show beyond a doubt that the author was in
some degree familiar with the geography of Palestine; e. g. in chap. 13:
8, 9, where Hermon, Dan, and Lebanon occur; in 25: 1 seq., where we
have the special localities of Jerusalem; and in 31: 2, where the desert
[of Arabia] and the Erythraean Sea come before us. But all this makes
nothing against the eastern home of the writer; inasmuch as more or
less of the pious Jews of all countries often visited Palestine, in order
to worship there.

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 63

(0) Time when the book was written. Dr. Laurence thinks this can
be ascertained almost with exact certainty, from the nature of some of
its contents. The substance of his argument may be briefly stated.
(1) It must; have been written before the epistle of Jude; for Jude quotes
from it, and quotes in such a way as to show that he supposed his rea-
ders to be already familiar with the book. (2) It.was written after the
book of Daniel ; because it often quotes from this book, and everywhere
shows a familiar acquaintance with it, and an effort to imitate it. Here
we have then, limits within which the book of Enoch must have been
composed. But, (8) From ch. Ixxxiii. to ch. xe. is an allegorical his-
tory or picture of all the leading events recorded in ‘the Old Testament
history. The people of Israel are represented as sheep ; and Saul, Da-
vid, and Solomon, are first distinctly alluded to as their shepherds. Af-
ter these it is said that seventy shepherds ruled over them. ‘These are
distributed into three classes; (a) Thirty-seven* kings of Judah and Is-
rael. Such is in fact the number, if we omit Zimri, deposed after seven
days ; Tibni, the rival of Omri, who can hardly be said to have actually at-
tained to sovereignty ; and Shallum, who reigned but one month; all three
being of the ten tribes. To make out the number in question, then, we
must include the twenty kings of Judah and the seventeen kings of Israel.
(6) Twenty-three shepherds constitute the second class; and these are
plainly the foreign kings of Babylon and. Persia, and also the kings of
Macedonian origin both in Syria and Egypt; viz. Babylonian 4, Persian
11, Macedonian 8, = 23; see names in Laurence, p. XXVII. (c)
Twelve native Jewish princes, beginning with Mattathias, the father of
Judas Maccabaeus, and ending with Herod.. Now inasmuch as no more
than twelve are comprised in this last class, Dr. Laurence concludes,
that the author must have lived and written during the time of Herod;
otherwise he would have included in his list Herod’s three sons who
reigned after him, and among whom Herod’s dominions were divided,
and also Agrippa who reigned over the whole province of Judea. This

would have increased the numbers, under the third class, to sixteen ; or,
in case we begin the reckoning with Judas Maccabaeus, to fifteen.

‘This representation appears plausible, at first view. But a closer ex-
amination of it than Dr. Laurence has made, brings serious difficulties to
light, which he has overlooked. In ch, 89: 25, the twelve shepherds or
princes, whom he reckons as native Jews, are spoken of in such a way,
as on.the whole to render this mode of reckoning quite improbable. Ac-
+ aint to this passage, an angel presents to the Lord “the book of the

* Dr. Laurence reads thirty-five, because the whole number added together
would make seventy-two instead of seventy. But there is noneed of this change.
The number seventy is used symbolically ; and consequently a little more or less
will make no important difference. So Litcke and Hoffmann.

a > hed by Ma

64 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

destruction which the last twelve shepherds wrought, and points out, be-

fore the Lord of the sheep, that they destroyed more than those who

preceded them.” So Laurence; but Hoffman remarks, that Laurence

has omitted the demonstrative before twelve shepherds, and that the

Ethiopic obliges us to translate thus: Which rHosE twelve shepherds

wrought. This gives an entire new turn to the whole passage, and

necessarily refers the shepherds to that class of which the writer had

been speaking; and these are beyond all reasonable question, forergn

kings who had exercised dominion over Judea. On turning back to ch.

89: 7, we find twenty-three shepherds mentioned, who bore sway during

fifty-eight periods. The context in the sequel to this last passage, exhibits

a symbolical representation of the struggles of the Jews for their free-

dom, and of the oppression and attacks of foreign powers. It would seem,

then, that the fifty-eight periods extend from the time of the exile down to

the time when the more violent sufferings and struggles of the Jews be-

gan. This, if we follow Hartmann, must be the period of Antiochus III.

or the Great, king of Syria, during whose reign Palestine was often a

theatre of war. The remaining periods to be completed, (in order to

make the round number 70), are the twelve under the twelve Rings,

brought to view in Enoch 89: 25, and mentioned above. Following the
book of the Maccabees, Hartmann makes out twelve Syrian and Egyptian ~
kings, from this period down to the time when Simon was elected as the
Leader of the Jews, and was acknowledged and confirmed as king by
Demetrius Nicator, B. C. 142; Froelich. Annales, p. 72. 1 Mace. 13:
34—42. From that period onward, temporary invasions and subjection
excepted, the Jews were ruled by their own princes, until near the pe-
riod when the nation was subdued and scattered by the Romans. It is
easy, when viewed in such a light, to account for it why the author of
Enoch should say, that “those last twelve shepherds destroyed more
than those who preceded them.” Antiochus Epiphanes is included
among the twelve ; and all the consequences that followed the struggle
so earnestly begun by him to destroy the Jews, are included. But to
apply this, as has been done by most, (and by myself in a former Re-
view of the book of Enoch, Bib. Repos. XV. p. 115 seq.), since the
publication of Laurence, to the native Jewish kings, is doing violence
to history, or else to the credit of the author of Enoch. This should
never be done, except in a case of absolute necessity. For particulars,
in vindication of the view given above, I must refer to Hartmann’s
Notes, on the passages of Enoch above cited.

In confirmation of this view, it should be mentioned, that the sequel
to Enoch 89: 25 treats of the victories obtained by the Jews over foreign
oppressors and powers ; which were completed in the time of Simon.
Of course, if this view of the subject be correct, the argument of Lau-

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 65

renee, that the book of Enoch was written in the time of Herod, because
the list of twelve kings is concluded with him, is not well grounded.
It would seem. that the list is concluded with Trypho or Demetrius, ri-
val chiefs, during whose contest Simon came to the crown. of Judea,
which was made hereditary in him.

We find notices moreover, in the book of Enoch, of occurrences later
than this period. The passage to which I now refer, is in ch. 54: 9,
which speaks of “the Chiefs of the East, among the Parthians and the
Medes,” as coming up and « treading upon the land of the elect,” and of
their “ removing kings and. hurling them from their thrones ;” in the se-
quel, however, they, are represented as checked by “the city of the
righteous.” These events are represented, also, in the book of Enoch,
as succeeded by civil war and destruction among the people of the Holy
Land.

The facts which correspond with this representation are, that the Par-
thians overran and subdued the whole of Syria, Tyre excepted, in B. C.
41; and in the following year they entered Judea, where Antigonus,
the last of the Asmonaean race of kings, was contending with Herod for
the sovereignty, drove out Herod, and placed Antigonus upon the throne.
Three years after this, Antigonus was displaced by the Romans, and
Herod established as king in his room. The civil wars and commotions
accompanying and following these events, are supposed to be what the
author aims to describe, in ch. 54: 10—12. At a period immediately
subsequent to this, Laurence, with whom Hoffmann (in Vol. I.) and
some others agree, places the composition of the book of Enoch. But in
Vol. I. Hoffmann, as we have seen, modifies this opinion,

So much is doubtless true, viz. that the composition must have been,
later than these events. How much later? is a question which these pas-
sages do not seem at all to decide. Other passages, however, in my view,
direct us to a period considerably later than the one designated by Dr.
Laurence. There is no need of supposing, that the author continues
the history of kings in Palestine down to the day in which he lived.
With the reign of Simon begins the period of Jewish independence ; and
besides this, the number of seventy kings is already completed, up to
that period. Subsequently, the invasion of the Parthians, and of the
Romans (as it seems to me), is adverted to by the author.

Tn chap. lv, the prophet represents himself as seeing ‘“ another army
of chariots, with men riding upon them, .. . coming from the east, the
west, and the south.” The whole earth trembles with the sound of
them, and ‘their noise is heard even to the extremities of earth and
heaven.’ I cannot well doubt, that the invasion of Palestine by Vespa-
sian is here designated. Laurence and Hoffmann refer it to the Roman
military interpositions in behalf of Herod; but these seem to me alto-

VOL. I. 9

66 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

gether too brief and insignificant to give occasion to such high wrought
description as is here employed. Besides, this invasion seems to be re-
presented, by the writer, as introductory to the completion of the king-
dom of God. So the primitive Christians, it is well known, regarded
the Roman invasion under Vespasian.

In ch. 89: 29 seq., after the seventy shepherds had ceased to rule, they
are represented as being brought to judgment, with the apostate angels,
and thrust into an abyss of fire “on the right of that house,” i. e. in the
valley of Hinnom. ‘ Hither the blind sheep, i. e. the obdurate Jews, are
also brought. The anctent house is then immerged, save some of its
choice parts, (comp. Apoc. 11:1, 2), and “the Lord of the sheep pro-
duces a new house, great, and loftier than the former, which he erects in
the place of the first which had been concealed,” (so Hartmann) ; and
all its pillars and ornaments are new. To this house all worshippers
from all parts of the earth come, and the Lord of the sheep rejoices with
great joy over them all.’—I am not aware of any construction of this,
which is so reasonable as that which supposes it to mean the destruc-
tion of the temple by the Romans, and the building of the new and
spiritual one under the Christian dispensation, with the consequent in-
gathering of the Gentiles. The context does not permit us to suppose,
that the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar can be here meant.’

Again, in ch. xcii. the author divides the whole period of the world’s
existence into ten weeks; not of equal length, but marked by events or
persons peculiar to each. The first in his own (Enoch’s) age; the se-
cond that of Noah and the flood; the third of Abraham; the fourth of
the Law; the fifth of Solomon’s temple; the sixth of Elijah, including
the Babylonish exile at its close; the seventh is that of the corruption
of many Jews, exiles among the heathen, and the conspicuous piety of a
part of them; the eighth is that of Judas Maccabaeus and the restora-
tion of Jewish worship and privileges (comp. 89: 26, 27); the ninth week
is destined ‘to destroy the works of the ungodly, to reveal the judgment
of righteousness to the whole world, and to prepare the world for the
final judgment.’ On the seventh day of the tenth week, is to be the final
judgment, and a new heavens will then be formed, “in which sin will
be no more named forever and ever.”

The names of the individuals who thus identify the respective weeks
or periods, as presented above, are indeed not given in the book of
Enoch; but such language is employed as leaves no room to doubt as to
the first six periods ; and in my own apprehension, there is little or no
reason to doubt respecting the limits assigned to the others. In the
ninth or Messianic period the author seems to have lived. If this be
doubtful here, further evidence will serve to confirm it.

On grounds such as these Liicke inclines to the opinion, that the wri-

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 67

ter of the book of Enoch composed his work after the destruction of the
temple by the Romans, and at a period when the Gospel had been spread
among the Gentiles, p. 60 seq.

But I have, in a diligent and repeated perusal of the book, lighted up-
on passages besides these, which seem to indicate that the author lived
after the period when most of the New Testament books were already
written; inasmuch as there are indications, satisfactory to me, that he
has not unfrequently referred to what they contain. It is difficult, per-
haps, to produce specific evidence enough concerning this to. satisfy all
minds; and I must cast myself, therefore, upon the tout ensemble of the
book, and appeal to the impression made upon such readers as have given
it a repeated and scrutinizing perusal. I can, however, specificate a
number of particulars, most of which seem in a good measure to have
been overlooked by Laurence, Hoffmann, and even by Liicke.

Ch. 38: 2, It would have been better for them, had they never been
born; comp. Matt. 26:24. Mark 14:21. Ch. 46: 3,4, The Son of man
--- shall raise up kings and the mighty from their couches, and’ the
powerful from their thrones ... he shall hurl kings from their thrones
and their dominions ...the countenance of the mighty shall be cast
down, filling them with confusion ; comp. Luke 1:51, 52. Ch. 480: 38,
With him dwells the spirit. of intellectual wisdom . .. and the spirit of
those who sleep in righteousness ; he [ Christ] shall judge secret things ;
comp. the frequent idiom of the New Testament, where sleep is used for
death, and sleeping in Jesus for dying in the Christian faith ; comp. also,
Rom. 2:16. Ch. 24:3 seq., Enoch sees a tree among the mountains of
judgment, “ goodly in aspect. . . its leaf, flower, and bark never wither
... the sight of its fruit is delightful . . . the fruit. of it shall be to the
elect [after the judgment]... the sweet odour shall enter into their
bones, and they shall live a long life ;” comp. Apoe. 22:2, 14. 2:7.

In ch. xl, Enoch is represented as seeing countless myriads standing
before the throne of the Lord of spirits, and in particular fowr archangels
standing on the four sides of this throne, and severally and successively
addressing themselves to him who sat upon it. In Apoc. iv—vi, the
four Zoa are represented as occupying the same position. Inasmuch as
they are there presented as rational creatures joming in the worship of
God, our author would seem to have considered them as archangels. In
Rev. vi. the four Zo are presented as successively speaking, in like
manner as in the book of Enoch. In ch. 47:1 seq., the blood of the
righteous is said to ‘ascend from the earth before the Lord of spirits . - -
that he would execute judgment, and that his patience may not endure
forever,” and thanks are given by all the powers of heaven, that this
supplication is accepted; comp. Rev. 6: 9 seq. 11: 16—18. Ch. 47: 3,
‘ The book of the living is opened, in the presence of God ;’ comp. Rey.

68 $6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

20:12. Ch. 48: 9, ‘ They [the persecuting wicked ] shall burn in the
presence of the righteous, and sink [into the great abyss | in the presence
of the holy ; comp. Rev. 14: 10. In 45: 4, 5, a new heavens and a new
earth are to be made for the dwelling of the righteous; comp. Rev. 21:
1. Ch. 50: 1, ‘The earth shall deliver up [for judgment] from her
womb, and Hades deliver up from hers that which it hath received, and
destruction [}i928, the abyss] shall restore that which it owes ; comp.
Rey. 20: 18.

When we attentively consider such passages as those just referred to
in the Apocalypse, must we not conclude, either that the writer of the
Apocalypse drew from the book of Enoch, or the author of the latter
book from John? To my own mind, John presents altogether the
strongest evidence of being the original; the author of the book of
Enoch appears to be the imitator. Ewald reverses this conclusion,
Comm. in Apoce. p. 9.

But we have not yet done with this subject. The Christology of the
book of Enoch bears almost incontestable evidence of New Testament,
or at least of Christian, origin.

In the moderate portion of the book which is directly Christological,
the name Elect or Hlect One, as applied to the Messiah, occurs some
fifteen times; comp. Luke 23: 35, and especially 1 Pet. 2: 4. Son of
man occurs, in the same portion of the book, at least sixteen times; my
Son, in 1046: 2; Messiah oceurs 48: 11. 51: 4; Son of woman occurs
in 61: 9, where he is said to sit on the throne of his glory, comp. Gal.
4: 4, yevouevoy &% yuvouxds. All this, specially the last, seems to be too
specific to be overlooked. But there is more still which exhibits the
Christian views of the author. In 48: 2, the Son of man is said to be
invoked before the Lord of spirits, and his name in presence of the An-
cient of Days. In 60: 10 seq. the Elect One is represented as ovxgo-
vog with the Lord of spirits, and as worshipped by all the host of heaven.
In 61: 9, 10, the Son of woman is said to be seated on the throne of
glory, and all the kings and princes of the earth are represented as glo-
rifying him.

In 60: 13 is a passage which seems, according to Laurence’s version,
to recognize the doctrine of the Trinity, “The Cherubim, the Seraphim,
and the Ophannim, [different orders of angels according to Jewish com-
putation |, all the angels of power, and all the angels of the Lords, viz. of
the Elect One, and of the other Power who was upon earth over the water
on that day [alluding to Gen. 1: 2]... shall glorify, praise, exalt, etc.”
This can hardly be taken for anything less than a development of trini-
tarian views ; at all events, of such views respecting the object of truly
divine worship as no uninspired Jew can be shown to have possessed,
until after the promulgation of Christianity. But Hoffmann translates:

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 69

“ Angels of power and all angels of lordships [i. e. who are of superior
order], and the Elect and the other Powers, who were on earth over
the water in that day,” i. e. superior angels present and assisting at the
creation. This is ingenious; but I doubt whether it expresses the mind
of the writer.

The New Testament insists much on the doctrine, that the Messiah is
to be the supreme and final judge of all men. So is it in the book of
Enoch, e. g. ch. 50: 38. 54: 5. 60: 10, 11. 61: 9. 68: 39, 40. On his
sentence depends the final destiny of all intelligent beings. Is not this
a peculiarity appropriate to the New Testament dispensation? On the
Son of man, moreover, all kings, princes, etc., are said to fix their hopes,
to pray to him, and petition him for mercy, 61: 12, 18. And when one
reads (48: 5, 6), that “the Elect and Concealed One existed in the
presence of the Lord of spirits, before the world was created and for-
ever; [and that] in his presence he existed, and has revealed to saints
... the wisdom of the Lord of spirits,” how can he refrain from sup-
posing, that John 1:1, 2, 18 was before the writer’s mind, and that he
‘has imitated even the very repetition which occurs in the Gospel of
John 1:1, 2?

I may add, also, that the book appears to be full of allusions to the
persecution of the righteous and the martyrdoms which they suffered
during the primitive age. I cannot produce at length the passages, for
want of room; but the reader may find some of them in 46: 6. 48: 4.
40: 5. 80: 11. 52: 4—7. 1:7. 10:18, 19. 48 a: 10. 62: 1—7. chaps. xciv.
—xcix. chaps. cii. ciii. 105: 28. Even these do not contain all the
passages of this nature which are in the book. Among those, however,
which I have here designated, are some which speak more particularly
of the peace and rest to be given to the righteous. The whole tenor of
the book is of such a cast, as to give special emphasis to such passages.
Let the reader turn to ch. 105: 23, near its close, where no doubt can
be left on his mind, that the writer has in view the same thing as John
had when he wrote Apoc. 12:11; for he has used almost exactly the
same expressions.

The doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked too is frequent-
ly and strongly asserted; e. g. in 16:5. 22: 14. 38:6. 39:2. 45:2. 49:
4, 91:38. 92:16. 103:5; so in several other passages.

It were easy to enlarge this view of coincidences in the book of Enoch
with the New Testament, or at all events with the doctrines of Christiani-
ty. How Dr. Laurence and Prof. Hoffmann could read all this attentive-
ly, and yet come to the conclusion that the author was a Jew who lived be-

fore the Christian era, I cannot well imagine. Like the Apocalypse,
from beginning to end the book is filled with threats to oppressors
and persecutors of the righteous. From beginning to end it is filled

f

70 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

with matter of consolation and encouragement to the pious who are
suffering. It has not only a general, but even a close, resemblance to
the Apocalypse in this respect. But what was there in the state of the
Jews, under the Roman power and protection, which resembled the con-
dition here supposed? Civil and political turmoils and parties there were
indeed; but no particular persecution on account of religious opinions.

Then again how can such a Christology be accounted for in a mere
Jew, sunk in the gross darkuess which immediately preceded the coming
of the Messiah? ‘Do we lack evidence, that the Jews of that day ex-
pected a mere temporal prince and conqueror for their Messiah ? Surely
we do not, if Targums and Talmuds, and Rabbinical productions, and
the New Testament itself, may be admitted to give testimony respect-
ing Jewish opinions. A Christology so spiritual as that of the book of
Enoch, which entirely omits all worldly splendour and glory and plainly
gives us a spiritual Messiah, and seemingly a doctrine of the Trinity
too (60: 13); a freedom, moreover, from Jewish partialities and He-
brew prejudices against. other nations—all, all proclaim a Christian au-
thor. .A Hebrew indeed he must have been; as the numberless allu-
sions to the Old Testament and quotations from it, and names every-
where formed from the Hebrew, sufficiently show; and also the orders
of angels which he names (60:13), and the well known Rabbinic con-
ceit respecting the feast, at a future day, upon Behemoth and Leviathan
(58:7, 8). _ But a mere Jew, with the common prejudices of his nation,
never would or could, as it seems to me, have written such a Christolo-
gy as the author of the book of Enoch has produced. He never could
have refrained from inveighing against the idolatrous 5°4x, and exhibit-
ing the deep feeling of superiority over them and contempt for them,
which was universal among the mere Jews of that period. There is
but little, moreover, in the whole book which even inveighs against
idolatry ; and that little is not in such a way as to show a strong sensa-
tion of Jewish pride and contempt. On the contrary, the author has in
many places taken pains to show, that the Lord of spirits has prepared
to extend his mercy to all without distinction who will yield obedience
to his commands, and that he will greatly rejoice to bring all his wan-
dering sheep back to his fold.

The angelology of the book, and in general its demonology, can be
easily accounted for by the supposition, (which is altogether a probable
one), that its author was a Median or Persian, and that he was only an
occasional visiter in Palestine. Indeed, the Jews in general of that
period were but little, if any, removed from sentiments on this subject
like those in the book of Enoch. The excessive leaning of the book to
imagery borrowed from fire, light, and splendour, are perfectly natural
to one brought up in the midst of Parsism. The imperfect exhibition

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH. 71

of several important Christian doctrines, moreover, may be easily ac-
counted for on two grounds; first, on the ground of the special design
of the book, for it was not intended to be a system of Christian doctrine ;
secondly, on the ground that the author was but a neophyte in the
Christian religion.

One remark more on the present condition of the book, should not be
suppressed. In many of its parts, it bears the most evident marks of
carelessness in transcribers. The transpositions plainly indicate this.
Almost equally plain is it, that the book has suffered some interpolations,
and some omissions. There are passages, (for an example of the latter),
which are quoted by some of the fathers, that are not to be found in
our present copy of this work. In the apocryphal writing entitled the
Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, an undoubted production of the first
century or of the beginning of the second, there occur, as has been sta-
ted, no less than ten quotations from the book of Enoch, all except one
appealing to him by name. In some of these are predictions of evil to
the Jews, and predictions of what would be done by them to the Mes-
siah and his followers, which would place the matter of Christian author-
ship beyond all question, in case we could fully fix upon them as real
extracts from this book. E. g. in Test. Levi, ch. 16, in Test. Nepht.
ch. 4, and in Test. Benj. ch. 9, are passages which render it impossible
to mistake the character of the writer. The only difficulty here is, that
we cannot with certainty tell exactly where the author of the Testa-
ments designed to conclude his quotations, inasmuch as his own accom-
panying words very much resemble, in their tenor, what is probably
quoted from the book of Enoch. On the whole, it seems probable that
the book of Enoch has been early tampered with by the Jews that
some of its obnoxious contents have been expunged or altered, and per-
haps some things of no great moment been added.

Liicke is decidedly of the opinion, that the book before us was writ-
ten during the latter half of the first century, Kinleit. p. 60. Of the
same opinion is Dr. Nitzsch, in his De Test. XU. Patriarcharum, p. 17
seq. On p. 31 he remarks, that this book, cwm aetate et ingento, is not
much remote from the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs; which
agrees with Liicke’s views as above stated. These writers are no ordi-
nary judges, in respect to such a subject. De Sacy and Ewald are also
of the same opinion, for substance, as to the age of the work.

(c) Probable author of the book. His person is unknown, and there
is nothing in the book which would: lead us even to a conjecture as to
his name. We have already seen, that in all probability he was an
oriental man, a Jew, a Ohristian Jew ; and, we may add, probably a
neophyte in the Christian religion, who was but partially instructed, and

72 § 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

who had visited Palestine and there been converted, and there perse-
cuted.

(d) As to those contents of the book of Enoch which closely resem-
ble the Apocalypse, with regard to the persecution of the righteous,
and the certain prospect of future deliverance; they are too numerous
to be recounted. here. I have already adverted (on p. 69) to passages
which bring the sufferings of the pious to view. I must content myself,
at present, with merely referring the reader to some of the millennial*
passages contained in the book; e. g. Ch. 1: 6—8. 6:9. 10: 21—29
(full statement). 38: 1—6. 39:1. 45:4 seq. 48:10, 11. 49:1. 50:5.
51:4. 52:6, 7. 92:15—18. 108: 1—12. 104: 1, 2. 105: 26, 27. Not
every passage here noted affords by itself satisfactory evidence of mil-
lennial views; but when the whole are examined in their connections,
such views can hardly remain a matter of doubt. There is a leading
and prominent sympathy common to this writer and that of the Apoca-
lypse.

On the whole, one cannot wonder at the deep interest manifested in
the early ages of Christianity, in the production before us. Some parts of
it exhibit no small measure of lofty conception in regard to the Godhead
and the world of spirits.. Throughout there is a deep tone of moral
feeling, and the close of the book seems almost worthy of a place in the
canon, among the comminatory parts of some of the prophets. A part
of the demonology of the book cannot find any credence at the present
day, among enlightened men; but the early fathers found here only
what was congenial with their own speculations. The astronomical part
of the book shows the author to be, in all probability, one who was edu-
cated in the midst of the 13 of the oriental regions. A competent
interpreter might educe from it many things interesting to the history of
astronomical science. Indeed the book throughout is exceedingly rich
in the disclosure of the sympathies and the speculations, and also of the
modes of expression and thought, that were current in the first age of
Christianity. It throws light on the angelology and demonology of the
New Testament; on the current Christology of the first century ; and
on many things of a subordinate nature. It is worthy of much more at-
tention, in these respects, than it has hitherto received among critics.

Quoration By Jupr. The reader, who has not access to the book,
will be pleased to see the passage which Jude is generally supposed to
have quoted, exhibited in such a way that he can make a comparison
for himself. I shall therefore subjoin it.

* Ido not mean by millennial, that the period of a thousand years is expressly
designated in the book of Enoch ; but only the character of the millennial days is
intended to be designated by the word, as I employ it.

§ 6. BOOK OF ENOCH.

June, vs. 14, 15.

* Enoch, also, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied of these, saying: Behold,
the Lord cometh with ten thousands of
his saints, to execute judgment upon
all, and to convince all that are ungodly
among them of all their ungodly deeds,
which they have ungodly committed,

73

Enocn, ch. ii.

Behold, he [the Lord] cometh with
ten thousands of his saints, to execute
judgment upon them, and destroy the
wicked, and reprove all the carnal for
everything which the sinful and ungod-
ly have done, and committed against

and of all their hard speeches (oxdjoov) him.

which ungodly sinners have spoken
against him. ;

ae

The quotation of Jude, (if it be truly one), is evidently paraphrastic,
and such an one as would be made memoriter very naturally. The de-
signation, in Jude, of hard speeches (oxAyowvr) was probably occasioned
by the character of the times and the circumstances in which Jude wrote.

After all that has been said on the subject of this quotation, hardly
anything new can be added. De Sacy remarks upon it, that “the au-
thor of the book of Enoch may have quoted from Jude, as well as Jude
from him.” To this Hoffmann objects, that ‘then the circumstance,
that Hnoch the seventh from Adam prophesied, must have been interpo-
lated ; of which we have no proof.’ But this does not follow of neces-
sity. Jude and the author of the book of Enoch may have both quoted
from traditionary remains of ancient history; like Paul’s allusion to
Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. 3: 8, or like Jude’s account of the contest
of Michael the archangel about the body of Moses, in v. 9 of his epis-
tle. The two passages are not so identical as to render quotation cer-
tain, either on the one’ side or on the other. Probable I must deem it
to be, that Jude has quoted the book of Enoch, because he seems, in
what he says of “the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their
habitation, and are reserved in chains of darkness,” to allude to the ac-
count of apostate angels as given in the book of Enoch. Beyond this I
should not deem it safe to go. That Jude assumes the truth of what
seems to be quoted, must be admitted; but it is not of course untrue, or
fictitious, because it is found in the book of Enoch. Nor is the whole
book of Enoch any more vouched for in consequence of this quotation,
than are the poems of Aratus and Epimenides when Paul quotes them ;
see in Acts 17: 28 and Tit. 1:12.

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK. This Lawrence supposes to
have been Hebrew, inasmuch as all the proper names are of Hebrew
origin; the author was a Jew; and the book of Zohar, the most ancient
of all the Cabbalistic books, appeals to the book of Enoch as authorita-
tive, which, it is thought, he would not do, in case the book had been
written in Greek, for that would show upon the very face of it that
Enoch could not have been the author. Hoffmann agrees with this

VOL, I. 10

74. § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

opinion ; De Sacy seems to doubt; at any rate, Licke does not regard
these arguments as convincing, p. 65 seq, 5 and long ago, from the state
of the fragment quoted in G. Syncellus (see on p. 52), Heidegger, Wit-
sius, and Hottinger, maintained a Greek original. On the supposition
that an oriental Jew composed it, it would be most probable that the
original language was Hebrew. But if it were, it must have been very
early translated ; for Jude, the author of the Testament of the twelve
Patriarchs, and Tertullian, manifestly appear to have read it in Greek,
and quoted it as such. ‘The Ethiopic version, moreover, must doubt-
less have been made from a Greek copy; for in 7: 8 it has Armonem -

(beginning with A =) derived doubtless from the Greek Eguor,

and not from the Hebrew j22n. So in 10: 24 elias (Gr. éhaias) is put
for oil; 20:7, thisat probably for éxwcéz, which seems to be the Greek
imitation of N®2n, throne ; 30:1, nekatro for the Greek véxtaoos. Be-
sides; all the Scriptures quoted, as a general thing, are derived from the
Greek version of the Scriptures.

There remains more yet to be done for the illustration of this valua-
ble piece of antique, than has been done, even by Hoffmann who has
made a very laudable beginning. Would that some adequate and im-
partial connoisseur of antiquity might pay still more attention to a com-
mentary upon this production !

As it relates to the Apocalypse, Ewald is the only commentator whom
I have seen, that has made use of the book of Enoch. He takes it for
eranted that it was written before the Apocalypse, and so makes John
often an imitator of it. That the reverse of this is true, I cannot, after
repeated perusals of both books, entertain any question. Originality of
plan and execution lies on the face of the Apocalypse, on the symmetry
of its design, and the vivid freshness of its costume and modes of ex-
pression. Deeply imbued was the writer with a knowledge of the Old
Testament Scriptures; most familiar in his mind were Ezekiel, Daniel,
and Zechariah; but after all, the thoughts and words are strictly his
own. ‘They everywhere receive the colouring of his own mind. It is
not so in the book of Enoch.

(c) Fourth Book of Ezra.

Such is the name now usually given to an apocryphal book of Ezra,
of early origin, in consequence of Jerome’s so naming the Latin version
of this book, which has in general been the only one in use among the
learned. In the Codex Coisl. of Montfaucon, p. 194, itis named (among
other apocryphal books) as’Eodea a&zoxcdvyrg. The inscription of the
Latin version itself names it the second book of Ezra; at least the in-
scription to the version which comprises chaps. i. ii. xv. xvi. so names

§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 75

it; but these chapters, as we shall see in the sequel, are interpolations.
The Arabic and Ethiopie vetsions of this book, which begin with chap.
iii, both name it the first book of Ezra. This variety of names doubt-
less sprung merely from different modes of arranging and publishing the
several books, that bore the title of Ezra. The proper book of Ezra
was counted by Jerome as. the first; Nehemiah as the second ; the
Greek Ezra in the Septuagint version as the third; and the book be-
fore us as the fourth. In some Mss., moreover, chap. xv. xvi. of the
Jourth of Ezra are reckoned as a separate book, and called the fifth book
of Ezra.*

In the second century Clement of Alexandria quoted from a Greek
copy of this book ; so that we have an assurance in this, both of its early
origin and of the language in which Clement found it. See Strom. 3:
16, where a passage is quoted from Ez. 5: 35, and then Clement adds:
‘Eodoas 0 noopytns déyet. There is little doubt that. Clement regarded
the book as of good authority. Such was the case also with other fathers
of the church. Ambrose regarded it as an inspired book; see, De Bono
Mortis,’c. 10. 11, and Comm. ad Lucam 2:21. Vigilantius appealed to
it, in the days of Jerome, in order to confirm a sentiment of his; but
was severely rebuked by that veteran critic. LZven in modern times
the book has had its advocates; but the general sentiment, both in an-
cient and in modern times, has been strongly against its canonical claims.

The composition before us bears many marks of having been much
tampered with, by addition, by abscission, and also by imitation. Chap.
i. ii. and xv. xvi. are not only omitted in the Arabic and Ethiopic
copies of the book, but twelve out of thirteen Latin Mss. at Oxford also
omit them, so that no doubt can remain, on critical ground, that they
must be rejected. The tenor of them moreover is such, that they are in-
compatible with the older part of the work, viz. ch. iiimxiv.—Besides
this, the Arabic and Ethiopic copies insert large paragraphs, amounting
to a chapter in extent, after chap. 7: 35 in the published Latin copy.
In this case, however, the congruity of the portion inserted by these
versions, with the context, is a strong proof of its genuineness.

It has been maintained by some critics of name, that the book was

* The Greek original of this book has been supposed to be lost; but sugges-
tions have recently been made, that it may probably be found in the library at
Paris ; see Thilo, Acta Thomae, Proleg. p. 82. At present we have the Latin
version, which is ancient ; the Ethiopic, made some time after the middle of the
fourth century, i. e. after Ethiopia was christianized ; and the Arabic version, the
age of which is uncertain. The Arabic version, in a Ms. of the Bodleian library
at Oxford, was translated into English by 8. Ockley, and published by Whiston
in his Primitive Christianity, Vol. [V. The Ethiopic also has been translated
into Latin and English, and published by Dr. Laurence, of Oxford, in A. D. 1820,
one vol. 8vo.

76 § G6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

originally written in Hebrew. That the style everywhere Hebraizes,
as it now appears in the Latin version, is evident enough to every one
acquainted with the Hebrew idiom; e. g. excedens excessit; viventes
vivere; proficiscens profectus sum; numero numerayit; odiens odisti,
etc. etc. very often repeated; besides a great many phrases altogether
in the Hebrew manner of expression. But still, a Hebraizing Greek
writer might employ the like expressions, as the Septuagint often does ;
the evidence, therefore, of being written in Hebrew is somewhat dubious.
It rests rather upon conjecture than testimony. Greek the copy must
have been, which was quoted by Clement of Alexandria; and the Latin
translation not unfrequently betrays a Greek original; e. g. by such
words as pausa, plasma, plasmatio, romphaea, etc.

The interest that we have in this book, in regard to apocalyptic
matter, is but moderate. Only a small part of it is kindred in its form
to the Apocalypse, and still less bears any near relation to the specific
matter of the Revelation. There is, however, this general trait of re-
semblance to the Apocalypse in the fourth book of Ezra, viz. it proffers
consolation and hopes of better times to the suffering Jews; and, as
the Latin text is now presented to us, it contains a few Messianic pas-
' sages. Liicke has given the book an extensive examination, and be-

stowed much more labor and time upon it than on the book of Enoch. —

It is of immeasurably less interest, however, to the critical reader ; and
instead of forty pages devoted by him to this book and twenty-five to
the book of Enoch; I would that the case had been reversed; although
one can scarcely help following such a writer as Liicke with pleasure,
wherever he leads the way.

I proceed to a brief sketch of the contents of the book. Chap. i. and
ii, it will be remembered, are undoubtedly an interpolation.

Chap. i. begins by tracing the genealogy of Ezra back to Aaron. It contains
severe ‘reproof of the Jews for all their departures from God, and recites at length,
in order to aggravate their guilt, the numerous interpositions of the divine Being
in their favour, during past ages. It declares that God will give their land to
another people, who will believe on him without signs, wonders, or prophets, i. e.
(as I understand the assertion), who will be converted by the instrumentality of
simple preaching.

Ch. i. repeats the threats that God will cast them off, and scatter them among
the nations, God has selected a people to whom he will give up Jerusalem ; and
there, every kind of blessing shall await them. The tree of life shall flourish
there ; evil shall be eradicated; the dead shall be raised from their graves to in-
crease the number of God’s people; Isaiah and Jeremiah shall be sent to help
them; twelve trees loaded with various fruits, as many fountains of milk and
honey, and seven mountains covered with lilies and roses, shall be provided for
their enjoyment. This is followed by hortatory matter; and this again by prom-
ises. Ezra was commissioned in Horeb [like Moses] to warn the people, but they
reject him; the Gentiles (gentes) are therefore invited to expect a Saviour, who

= ap

§ 6, FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. vad

will come in jine saeculi [ea nmohes]; his followers shall be clothed with
splendid garments; the number of them shall be complete. Ezra sees an innu-
merable multitude on mount Zion [comp. Rev. 14: 1], and among them a youth-
ful form of lofty stature [the Messiah] distributing crowns. Ezra inquires who
these are ; and he is told, that they are confessors of God’s name, who have de-
parted this life, and now are crowned, [comp. Rev. 7: 13—17] ; also that he who
distributes the crowns, is the Son of God whom they have confessed.’

There can be no doubt that these two chapters came from the hand
of some Christian writer. The manner in which the Jews are rebuked,
the favour shown to the Gentiles, the evident imitations of the Apoca-
lypse, together with the Messianic matter contained in them, all indicate
the hand of a Christian writer. But as to the question: When were
these chapters added to the ancient and principal work? we have no
certain information which will enable us to decide it. The paucity of
even Latin Mss. which contain them, shows that the addition must have
been modern.

Chap. iii—xiv. form a peculiar and connected whole. The burden
of the theme is, the distressed and desolate condition of the Jews, the
mourning and astonishment of Ezra over it, and the hope of a better
day in the sequel. If there are a few Messianic passages in this part
of the book, (the only part which is genuine and ancient), still they are
so few, and of such a nature, that it is doubtful whether they are not
interpolations.

Chap. iii. commences with the statement, that ‘ Ezra, in the 30th year after the
desolation of the holy city, was in Babylon, reflecting on the ruined state of his
country, and that he was filled with anxiety and distress, and also with perplexity,
on account of the treatment which it had received. He complains that God had
made Adam to be the common father of all nations, because he sinned and was
punished ; the whole world, also, was punished afterwards for sin, by the flood;
and after this, when men became corrupted, God selected Abraham, made a cove-
nant with him accompanied by many promises, wrought many signs and wonders
for his posterity, who still, urged by an evil heart inherited from the transgressor
Adam, broke his laws and forfeited his fayour,—and in consequence of all this the
holy city had been devoted to destruction. But why is Jerusalem thus dealt with,
while Babylon remains unpunished, which is a greater sinner still? Other na-
tions have sinned more than Israel; why should they be spared, and Israel de-
stroyed °’

Chap. iv. ‘ The angel Uriel is sent to answer the questions of the complaining
seer. The angel asks him, (in order to show the folly of complaint by ignorant
man), to weigh the flames of fire, to measure the quantity of the wind, or to recall
the day they had then past. He does not ask about more recondite and myste-
rious matters, lest they might exceed the capacity of the complainant, but re-
specting things obvious and of continual occurrence. If Ezra cannot explain
them, how can he expect to explain the deep counsels of the Almighty? The
angel proposes a parable: The forest declared war against the sea, and would fain
march into it in order to assail it; vice versa, the sea joined issue, and desired to
roll in upon the forest; but neither could move from its place: so it is with the

78 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

inhabitants of the earth, they cannot scale heaven, and possess themselves of its
secrets.—The seer still repeats his complaints respecting the severe and partial
treatment of Israel. The angel gives him to understand, that the transitory gene-
rations of the world are not capable of perceiving all the future good which is
promised to the just; that the evil heart derived from Adam still blinds and per-
verts them, and will do so until the time of harvest comes. The ingathering shall
then be great. [Is not this Messianic?] The souls of the just once inquired when
their harvest time would come; the archangel Jeremiel told them, that when the
number of the wicked should be completed, God would bring about the time which
he had decreed. Nothing can prevent this. Ezra inquires, whether the past time
or the future is the most? By similitudes the angel shows him that the past time
exceeds the future.

Chap. v. More corrupt times are yet to come. Then, after the third trumpet
shall sound, great changes are to take place, and strange events to happen, through-
out the world of nature. In the midst of all these, the unrighteousness and the
misery of men shall increase. Here the angel breaks off, and commands a fast of
seven days.

At the beginning of this fast, the angel Salathiel comes to Ezra and strives to
console him. He refuses consolation, and proceeds with his fasting and prayer.
At the end of seven days he resumes his anxiety and complaints, that the one
chosen, beloved, favoured people of God should be treated with more severity than
the heathen. The angel again comes, and reproves his excessive grief. He asks
Ezra, whether he loves Israel more than God their Maker does? He reminds him
that the subject respecting which he 1s so anxious, surpasses his comprehension ;
for he can neither number that which has not yet come, nor count the drops of
rain, nor revive the flowers that have withered, nor open the treasures of the
wind. Ezra wishes to know why things cannot be hastened and brought more
closely together, so that the promised good may more speedily come. The angel
tells him that the earth has its natural course, and so must all things else. In-
fants are not born of full stature ; the earth too is to have its old age.’

Ch. vi. The angel continues: ‘ Before the creation of all the different objects
now belonging to the world, all things were determined. Ezra wishes to know
when the former age will end, and the latter one begin. The angel declines to
tell him. Ezra again asks to know the end of the signs-which had been shown
him. He is commanded to listen without fear. A loud voice, as of many waters,
strikes his ear, and proclaims that the days are coming in which God will begin
to visit the earth, to punish the wicked, and bring to an end the humiliation of
Zion. Great changes and strange events shall then take place ; men shall destroy
each other, and those who survive shall see salvation and the end of the present
age. The hearts of men shall be changed; evil shall cease; truth and fidelity
. Shall flourish. More is promised to be disclosed, after another fast of seven days.

After this Ezra again commences his complaint. He recites what God had
done on the several days of creation; how he made Behemoth and Leviathan ;
finally he pleads, that Adam was made, that a chosen people was selected from
his posterity, that other nations were regarded as nothing; but now, they lord it
over God’s people and destroy them. If the world was created for the chosen
people, why then do they not possess it ?°

Chap. vii. The angel again appears and tells Ezra, ‘that the sea is immense, and
the entrace to it a narrow channel; if this be not passed, how can one rule over
the sea? A city is built full of all good things; the entrance to it is narrow, be-
tween fire and water, yet who shall enjoy the good, that will not pass through the

§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 79

dangerous entrance? So this world is full of sorrow; who shall enjoy the good
to come, that refuses the discipline which this occasions? Ezra ought, therefore,
to cease from his complaints. The righteous will be amply rewarded; the wicked
only suffer the just punishment of disobedience. ‘The time of liberation is not
far distant. My Son Jusus shall be revealed, and those with him shall be made
glad in 400 years.—My Son rue Curist shall die after this, and all who breathe,
and seven days shall primitive silence reign over all the earth. A new age shall
then come; the earth shall give up the dead; the judgment shall take. place;
truth, confidence, justice, rewards, shall follow, and sin forever cease. [Here the
addition in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions comes in, and in a manner altogether
consonant with the train of thought. .The sequel presents a summary of it].
Sinners shall be plunged into the bottomless abyss; and paradise shall appear in
all its glory. All.the phenomena of nature will cease. A hebdomade of years is
the destined number of these things. Ezra replies, that those are happy indeed
who keep the commandments of God; but alas! how few of this character! Broad
is the road which leads to destruction. The angel continues: God has created
two worlds. There are a few precious things, and many inferior ones. The pre-
cious things are the more highly prized, because of the latter; God will rejoice
the more in his elect few. Ezra complains that we were made of clay which
could transgress, and endowed with reason. The brutes are better off who have
no abuse of reason to account for. As the wicked are to be raised from the dead
and punished, it would be better if they had never been made. The angel an-
swers, that those who are endowed with reason and freedom are justly held ac-
countable, for they have no excuse.

Ezra wishes to know, whether men go immediately after death to their retribu-
tion, or whether they are kept in a place of rest until the judgment day? The
angel answers, that Ezra himself, being righteous, is safe; that the souls of the
righteous go immediately into the presence of God; that the wicked are confined
and kept for judgment. These shall mourn for seven reasons, which are given.
On the other hand, when the righteous come before God, they will rejoice for as
many reasons; which are also given. They shall forever behold the divine glory,
and be happy in the presence of God.

Ezra wishes to know whether any time intervenes between death and retribu-
tion. The angel answers, that seven days are occupied by souls in making in-
spection of all things; then they enter their final abode. Ezra inquires, whether
intercession for departed spirits is lawful? The angel informs him that it is use-
less, for their doom is fixed. [Here the addition in the Arabic and Ethiopic ver-
sions ceases]. Ezra replies, that Abraham, Moses, Samuel, etc., interceded for
the wicked; why may not he then intercede in the case supposed? The answer
is, that the present is a time of probation; the future is the final end, and admits
of no change. Ezra still complains of the destiny of men, and says it would be
better had they never been made. It were better that there were no paradise,
than to see it and come short of it. The angel replies, that reward is offered to
the good; which is all that ought to be required. Ezra is constrained at last to
acknowledge, that the long-suffering of God is great towards perishing sinners ;
if it were not so, not a ten thousandth part of men could be saved.’

Chap. viii. ‘The present world was made for many; the future one for few.
As the earth affords abundant material for potter’s vessels, but not much from
which gold is extracted, so many are created, yet but few are saved. Lzra re-
plies, that God arranges and disposes of all things by his sovereign power; that
he kills and makes alive ; and consequently it would be easy for him to save all,

80 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

especially his chosen people. For them he (Ezra) makes intercession, and prays
God to forgive their sins. The divine indignation should be turned against the
heathen, and not against his own chosen people. All.men are sinners; God
must not deal hardly with his people. The angel then reminds Ezra, that when
a multitude of seeds are sown, all do not spring up and grow; in like manner, all
men will not attain to eternal life. Ezra is assured that he is regarded with fa-
vour, and that his future happiness is certain. He is forbidden to urge the ques-
tion respecting those who perish. All had liberty as free agents; they abused
that liberty, and therefore are deserving of punishment, Ezra wishes to know,
when the things signified will take place.’ ;

Chap. ix. x. The angel tells Ezra, that the final period of the world will be
preceded by great commotions of the natural elements and of nations. When
such beginnings take place, the consummation must follow. The ungrateful and
rebellious must be punished. Ezra ought not to inquire so much respecting these,
but rather respecting the salvation of the righteous. Ezra persists in his complaint,
that many perish while only a few are saved. . The angel tells him that the many
perish, because they are produced for no important purpose; but the few, God’s
chosen people, are like to a single choice grape on a large cluster. Here Ezra is
commanded to go into a field, Ardath [Arphad?] for seven days, yet not to fast,
but to live on the flowers. At the end of this period he again makes confession,
and intercedes for his people. Soon after this he sees a woman weeping and
mourning. He strives to comfort her; but in vain. She tells him that for thirty
years she was barren. God then, in answer to her earnest prayers, gave her a
son. When he had grown up, on his wedding day he fell down dead. Great
mourning followed, and she fled into the field, where she is resolved to remain in--
consolable until death. Ezra reproves her, and bids her consider how much more
reason the country has to weep for its multitudes slain, and the land for its pro-
ductions destroyed. The woman refuses to return home. Ezra resumes his nar-
ration of the suffering and desolate condition of the land; Jerusalem is destroyed,
the temple rifled of its holy things, the Levites gone into captivity, virgins are
ravished, infants, youth, strong and weak, are all destroyed together; and every-
thing is under the entire control of enemies who hate the Israelites.—The woman
then vanishes with a loud sound, and a city is seen in the place where she stood.

Uriel now comes to explain the vision. The woman is Zion. The thirty years
barrenness are the thirty years preceding the time of building the temple by Solo-
mon. His offering of oblations designates the son which was born. The nour-
ishing of this son was the inhabitation of Jerusalem. His sudden death means
the ruin of the city. Other visions are to be presented, if Ezra will remain another
day.’

Chap. xi. xii. ‘In a dream Ezra sees a great eagle, with twelve wings and three
heads. From her wings, expanded over all the earth, sprung other smaller wings
opposite to them, of which there were eight. These all vanish, one after another,
in various ways, until only one head is left. A lion then comes from the forest,
and addresses to the eagle words of severe reproof and threats, because of her ty-
rannical reign. The eagle vanishes before him. The seer awakes fatigued and
distressed with his dream. The angel appears in order to interpret it. The eagle
is the fourth beast in Daniel’s vision, i. e. the Roman empire. Twelve kings
[the twelve Caesars] shall reign over it, the second of which shall have the lonc-
est reign [Augustus]. The eight secondary wings are kings of short duration i
the Roman empire ; [tributary and dependent kings over some of the provinces ?]
These perish at various times and in different ways. The lion is the Anointed

$6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 81

One, who will judge and condemn opposing enemies. He will liberate the peo-
ple of God, and make them happy until the time of the judgment. Ezra is com-
manded to write down all this, and deposite it in a secret place, but secretly to
communicate these matters to the wise. He is commanded to wait seven days
more for other disclosures.

All the people now come to Ezra out of the city, and beseech him to return.
He comforts them, and bids them wait a few days, and then he will return to
them.

Chap. xiii. After seven days, a great wind arises on the sea, and Ezra beholds
aman surrounded by an innumerable multitude of heavenly beings. At his voice
all nature shudders. From the four winds of heaven a countless host assemble
to make war upon him. This man [the Messiah] raises up.a great mountain and
takes his station upon it. His enemies are struck with terror; he breathes forth
fire and consumes them. He now descends from the mountain, and is surround-
ed by a great multitude ; some are joyful and some sad. Ezra asks for the inter-
pretation of these things. The angel thus interprets: The man from the sea, is
he who will liberate the creature, [i.e. he is the Messiah]. The fire from his
mouth, indicates the destruction which is to take place at his coming. “ My Son
shall be revealed.” The nations will assemble to make war; he shall take his
stand on the mount Zion, which shall be raised up for the occasion. My Son”
shall reprove the nations for their iniquities, and shall destroy them. The peace-
ful multitude, gathered around him after this, are the ten tribes carried wway cap-
tive by Salmanasar. He will prepare the way for their return, and those who are
left of the chosen nation will be protected. Inasmuch as the man ascended from
the depths of the sea; this shows that we cannot discern him or his, until the
time of his coming. Ezra is required to wait yet three days more.

Chap. xiv. A voice then speaks to him, and declares itself to be the same which
addressed Moses out of the burning bush. He is commanded to lay up in his
mind all which he had seen or heard. The end approaches. The world’s period
is divided into twelve parts, [Ethiopic version reads ten, which is doubtless the
correct reading], ten and one half of which have passed away. Ezra is command-
ed to reprove his people, to put his house in order, and to live in the strenuous
performance of all his duty. The old age of the world will bring many evils with
it. Ezra is commanded to procure many tablets and five scribes. He then goes
to the people, admonishes them to live virtuously, and forbids them to seek him
for forty days. After this he goes with his scribes into the field again, and there
a voice commands him to drink from the chalice which is proffered to him. He
drinks, and is filled with understanding and wisdom. He dictates, and the scribes
write, during forty days. He is commanded to publish the books thus written;
which (according to the Ethiopic and Arabic version) make ninety-four volumes.’

[Here both the Arabic and Ethiopic versions come to a close, each adding an
epigraph. The epigraph of the Arabic version reckons the time of Kzra’s death,
and makes it A. M. 5025—a mere fancy work of some transcriber].

Chap. xv. xvi. These, which are not a part of the original work, continue the
speech which God is said to have commenced in chap. xiv. The substance of
them is comminatory. The world shall be filled with woe, because of its wicked-
ness. God will vindicate the just, and repay vengeance to their oppressors and
adversaries. The Arabians and Carmanians shall contend together. Many wars
in the north and east will succeed. All the elements will be in commotion.
Babylon will be attacked. Asia [Minor] the ally of Babylon will be smitten he-
eause of her persecutions. Egypt and Syria shall be joined with it. Every kind

VOL. I. 11

82 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

of evil shall come upon these countries. The evils are particularized, and repeat-
ed at great length. God who created and governs all things, and brings about all
events, is able to accomplish all which he threatens. Sinners are exhorted to
cease from sin, specially from persecution; the elect of God have assurance that
they will be safe and happy, while the wicked will be sent to devouring fire.’
[Written altogether in the spirit of many of the Sibylline Oracles].

Thus ends this singular production. The writers who added the first
two and the last two chapters to the ancient work, were not very expert.
The matter and manner of these additions differ so widely from the origi-
nal book, that he must be dim-sighted indeed who does not perceive it.

T have already remarked, (p. 77), that the first two chapters are from
a Christian hand; probably from the hand of a Gentile Christian. The
anti-Judaic tendency is very apparent. The reproaches against the in-
gratitude, perverseness, and rebellion of the Jews, are very severe.
Threats of entire excision, and assurances of the reception of the Gen-
tiles in the room of the Jews, are prominent features of the whole repre-
sentation. The references to the New Testament are plain and unde-
niable; e. g. in 1: 30, “I have gathered you as a hen [gathereth] her
chickens under her wings,” comp. Matt. 23: 37. So also in 2: 11; “I
will give to them [the favoured Gentiles | eternal habitations, which I
have before prepared for them,” comp. John 14: 2. Luke 16: 9; so 2:
12, “ The tree of life shall be theirs,” [lignum vitae = o nn V2], comp.
Rev. 22: 2; also 2: 40, “ Zion... shall enclose candidatos tuos,” i. e.
those who are arrayed in splendid white robes, comp. Rev. 6:11. 7: 13,
14. Again in 2: 42, “I saw on mount Zion a great multitude which no
one can number, praising God,” ete., comp. Rev. 14:1; so in 2: 18, 19,
“twelve trees laden with various fruits” for the righteous, and as many
fountains of milk and honey, comp. Rey. 22: 1, 2.

In connection with this last passage in 2: 19, the writer adds: “[I

have prepared] seven immense mountains, having roses and lilies, in
which I will fill thy sons with joy.” In this last part the writer would
seem to have had in his mind the book of Enoch, ch. xxiv, where seven
mountains, covered with odoriferous trees, are presented as the place of
future paradise ; or perhaps both drew from some common source. When,
or by whom, these chapters were added, we have at present no means
of deciding. The Christian cast of them is undisguised ; and they seem
to have been prefixed in order to prepare the way for the profitable pe-
rusal of the older work which follows.

The last two chapters (xv. xvi.) are of a less specific character, and
must probably have come from a different hand. They are filled with
general denunciations against the nations of the earth, and are severely
comminatory, altogether, as has already been remarked, in the strain of

much that is found in the so-called Sibylline Oracles. The references

§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA. 83

to New Testament views are, in some places, sufficiently plain; e. g.
16: 29 compared with Matt. 24: 40, 41; 16: 42—45, compared with 1
Cor. 7: 29—31 ; 15: 8,9 compared with Rev. 6: 9, 10. Indeed the
whole piece is a designed, although humble and unsuccessful, imitation
of Matt. xxiv, as Liicke has remarked, Einl. p. 99. ‘The whole tenor
of this after-piece seems to indicate, that when it was written, there
were internal commotions in the Roman empire, and that foreign na-
tions were assailing it with violence. Liicke places it somewhere be-
tween A. D. 250 and 300. In the absence of all satisfactory diagnos-
tics of time, this conjecture may be allowed.

The ancient and main body of the work (ch. iii—xiv.) constitutes a
whole by itself. Its main object is plain and simple; and this is, to
comfort the people ef God, i. e. the Jews, in their state of depression,
persecution, and exile, with the hope of future deliverance. So far
there is a resemblance to the Apocalypse ; although I do not perceive
any satisfactory evidence that the writer of this ancient work was ac-
quainted with the Apocalypse. All the action of the piece is managed
by the intervention of visions, dreams, and angel-interpreters ; ‘and in
this respect, the ancient part of the book differs entirely from that of the
first two and last two chapters, which employ no means of such a nature.

The writer’s impatience of spirit, under the pressure of calamities
which had come upon his nation and himself, is, from first to last, a
prominent feature in the representation. The great problem is: How
ean the more wicked heathen remain not only unpunished, but even lord
it over God’s heritage, while that heritage is subjected to every kind of
ignominy and vexation in a state of exile and oppression? Ezra is so’
disquieted at this, that he not only urges a solution of the difficulty, but
., from beginning to end dwells upon the same theme, and repeats the
same questions; so that, as Liicke has well observed, it needed an an-
gel’s patience to bear with his questions. ;

The general costume is a designed imitation of the books of Daniel
and Zechariah. But the matter is of such a nature as renders the ques-
tion a little difficult, after all, whether the writer was a Jew or a Chris-
tian. On the one side it is evident, that Jewish sympathies originated
the whole plan of the work. Indignation against foreign nations, the
oppressors of the Jews, and contempt and hatred of them, are everywhere
visible. The fable of Behemoth and Leviathan (6: 49 seq.) shows at
least a familiarity with Jewish conceits. In 13: 39, 40, the Messiah is
represented as collecting and bringing out of exile the ten tribes in As-
syria. Everywhere an anxiety is shown, to satisfy the Jews that their
present sufferings are to be attributed partly to their sins, and partly to
the character of the times, which are the old age, or the iron age, of the
world; and that patient endurance will at last bring them out of their
sad condition.

84 § 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA.

On the other hand, in 7: 28, as the text now stands, itis said: “ My
Son Jesus, with those who are with him, shall be revealed, ete. ;” and
again in 7: 29, “ After those [400] years, my Son the Christ shall die,
and all men who have breath.” We cannot suppose that any mere
Jew, after the commencement of the Christian era, would have writ-
ten in this manner; and after this period the book was probably writ-
ten, as we shall see in the sequel. But neither the Arabic nor Ethiopic
versions have the word Jesus, but only Messiah ; which might be taken
by a Jew from Ps. ii. Besides, along with these seemingly Christian ele-
ments are intermingled clear Jewish ones at the same time. “ Those
who are with him,” (in 7: 28), appears to refer to the common Jewish
expectation, that the ancient prophets were to accompany the Messiah,
whenever he should make his appearance. The fact that the Christ
is to die after 400 years, and all other men with him, shows the Rab-
binic conceit of two Messiahs, the Son of David and the Son of Joseph.
The latter was represented by the Jews as mortal and perishable. As
to the time during which the Messiah’s development would be made, it
was stated very differently by different writers, even among the ancient
Rabbins. The Tractatus Sanhedrin mentions seven different periods ;
the period of seventy years; of three generations ; 365 years; 7000
years ; so long as the world has lasted until the commencement of the
Messianic reign; from the flood until the same period; and 400 years.
The last period was vouched for by Rabbi Dusa, who says, that in Ps.
xc. it is written: ‘“ Make us glad, according to the days in which we
have been afflicted” ; which, he adds, was 400 years [in Egypt], Gen.
15; 13.

At any rate such views of the Messianic period are not Christian ;
for the Christians always represented a thousand years as the period of
the Messianic reign. Nor is the death of the Messiah, with that of all
men, just before the day of glory and the final judgment (see ch. 7: 29
—35), at all consonant with early Christian views. We are compelled
then, by the essential elements in general of the work before us, to as-
cribe it to a Jewish origin ; and the special Christology of it, if there be
such, to an interpolating hand, such an one as added chap. i. ii. xy. xvi.
to the body of the work.

In that portion of the book which is added by the Arabic and Ethi-
opic versions, after 7: 35, the question is strongly urged upon the angel
by Ezra: Whether souls after death enter immediately upon their final
destiny? The reply is affirmative; with the exception, that they are
permitted to wander over the universe for seven days after the death of
the body. There seems also to be a hint, in 7:51, of a separate abode
of the righteous after death. Yet neither of these is so peculiarly either
Jewish or Christian, that it can afford any good evidence of the partic-
ular religious views of the writer.

*%

§ 6. FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA» 85

The vision of the woman in 9:388—10: 60 reminds one, as Liicke
has remarked, of Rev. 12: 1 seq. Yet the explanation given by the angel
(10: 38 seq.) is very diverse from the matter of Rev. xii. Again, the

> lion (11: 37 seq.) has some resemblance to the representation of John-in

Rey. 5:5; yet the chastisement inflicted by the lion [i. e. the Anointed
One] is of so general: a nature (12: 31—5), that nothing more than
such Messianic views as a Jew might entertain, are necessarily to be
brought into the account. Again, the Messiah appears in chap. xiii;
but: while he destroys all his enemies by the fiery breath of his mouth,
and vindicates the cause of the just, still in 18:40 the ten tribes are
brought to view as peculiar objects of his favor and protection.

On the whole we cannot well doubt that the work under examination
is of Jewish origin, and perhaps from a Jew belonging to the ten tribes,
but somewhat interpolated by Christian hands. How much it has suf-
fered in the way of interpolation and abscission, is plain enough from a
comparison of the Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic copies; the former of
which differs. widely indeed from the others; but the latter two also
differ from each other in a great variety of places. The wncanonical
character of the work has exposed it to be tampered with, even from
very early times.

As TO THE TIME in which the book was written, there seems to be
no satisfactory external evidence. It has been alleged, that Barnabas’
Epistle, c. 12, quotes Ezra 5:5. The words of Barnabas are: xai
Aéver Kvguos, orev Evdov “didn nai dvacty, wot oray éx Evdov aipao-
zaéy; the words of Ezra are: Et de ligno sanguis stillabit. ‘The re-
semblance is plain ; but as to actual quotation it is quite uncertain;
and equally uncertain is a supposed reference to Ez. 2: 16, in Clemens
Rom. I. 50. Clement simply quotes Is. 26: 20. In the quotations
from Ezra, found in Ambrose De Bono Mortis ¢. X. XI. Comm. in
Luc. 2: 21; in Opus Imperf., in Matth. XX. Hom. 34; and in Jerome,
advers. Vigilantium and Ep. ad Domn. et Rogat., no aid is afforded to-
ward the solution of the question before us. Jerome speaks contemp-
tyously of the book, and avers that only heretics read it; which, how-
ever, after what Clement of Alexandria has said of it, in Strom. HI. 16,
attributing it to “Eodeas 0 moopyzys, must be understood with much
qualification. Ambrose also manifests as high a regard for it as Clem-
ent of Alexandria ;-De Bono Mortis, cap. X. XI.

We must resort then to internal evidence. And here it is evident
from the tone, manner, and costume of the book, that it was written
after the period when Rabbinic conceits began to abound. The fable
of Behemoth and Leviathan ; the ninety-four books which Ezra wrote
(14: 44); the predicted proximity of the Messianic reign (4: 42); all sa-
your of a date subsequent to the birth of Christ. But in particular, the

86 6§) FOURTH BOOK OF BZRA.

vision in ch: 9: 38—10: 51, and the passage in ch. 3: 1, plainly and
explicitly avow the ruinous condition of Jerusalem (10: 48), and show
that the author must have lived after the destruction of that city by the

Romans. The destruction of it by Nebuchadnezzar is fairly out of ~~

ee,

question, considering the other historical matter to which the book
everywhere adverts.. j

I see nothing against the supposition, that the author has given the
true date of his book, at the commencement of it in 8:1. He says ‘he
was in Babylon [Rome] in the 30th year of the ruin of the city,’ when
the series of his visions commenced; consequently at the end of the
first century. In 12: 13 seq., the angel; in explaining the vision of the
eagle [the Roman empire] says, that ‘ twelve kings shall reign in it; the
second of which [Augustus] shall reign longer than any one of the
twelve. And as to the number twelve, such a number would not proba-
bly be designated, if more or less than this number of Roman Emperors
had already reigned. We seem, then, to have good ground here for the
conclusion, that the book before us (which is plainly a continuous whole)
was written at the close of the first century ; and probably by some Jew
then in exile.

Whiston, H. Dodwell, Basnage, Fabricius, Corrodi, Storr, Kaiser,

and F. Liicke, suppose the book to have been written at the close of the ©

first century, or in the beginning of the second. Semler and Vogel
maintain that it was written before the Christian era; and so does Dr.
Laurence,* in his edition of it translated from the Ethiopic Ms. at
Oxford, 1820. 8vo. Hartwig, in his Apologie, p. 241, sets it down to
A. D. 217.

The Messianic passages of the genuine book are not numerous.
They may be found in 4: 80 seq. 6: 25 seq. 7: 26 seq. 12:32 seq. 13:
26—37. Among these are probably some Christian glosses, which
have crept into the text. Independently of these, I can perceive noth-

*Dr. Laurence, in order to make out the twelve kings, begins with the original
first seven kings of Rome, and then adds five others who aimed at dominion.
The long reign of the second is that of Numa Pompilius. The eight small wings
(11: 11) he represents as persons aiming at supreme command, e. g. Sulpitius the
tribune, Marius (major), Cinna, Marius (minor), Carbo, Sertorius, Lepidus, and
Antony. The three heads (11: 29—31) are Sylla, Pompey, and Caesar. The
learned author seems more confident than usual, in this reckoning. But it must
be remembered, that he has given to the book an origin which precedes the Chris-
tian era; and such an exegesis seems expedient, in order to support this view.
A. F. Gfroerer, in an edition of the fourth book of Ezra (Stutgard 1840), assigns.
with confidence the date of the book to A. D. 90, and applies, as I have done
above, the twelve wings to the twelve emperors in succession after Julius Caesar,

The eight smaller wings he applies to the eight princes and heads of parties in
Judea ; see. 165, Note.

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 87

ing-which a Jew might. not have written, during the first century of our
era. I might except, perhaps, the fact that the tone of the Messianic
“| __ representations is rather too remote for a mere Jew, from that which we
«should expect from the carnal Jews of that period. It is of a spiritual
~ rather than of a temporal cast ; although the latter accasionally appears.
Yet all Jews, it may be, did not think or reason in the same manner in
respect to this subject; and the experience which the Jewish nation had
gone through, at the end of the first century, might well have sobered
some of the worldly notions about the Messianic reign, which the Jews

in general entertained.

The reader, who designs to study thoroughly the Apocalypse, may be
assured that his time will not be lost in a diligent perusal of the fourth
book of Ezra. The costume given by the spirit of the age to books of
this nature; a considerable number of the idioms of the New Testa-
ment; the tone of feeling common among the Jews of the first century ;
and many other matters of no small interest to the interpreter and critic ;
are developed in this production, in such a way as tends much to famil-
iarize any one with things of this nature. And this is an end, the
attainment of which is worthy of strenuous effort.

[The reader will find the literature of the book, best of all, in Fabricius, Codex
Pseudepigraph. Tom. If. p. 174 seq.; also in Whiston’s Apost. Consitutt.; Dod-
well’s Dissertt. Cyprianicae, 1V.; Basnage Hist. de Juifs, V1, 2; Lee’s Dissertt.
theol., mathemat., physical, I. p. 13 seq.; Semler, theolog. Briefe, erste Saml. p.
194 seq.; Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus, I. § 7; Laurence, Book of Ezra

translated, etc. 1820. 8vo.; Gfroerer’s republication of this, Stutg. 1840; and Litcke,
Kinleit. in die Offenbarung Johannis, 1832. 8vo.]

(d) The Sibylline Oracles.

The time has been, when the question respecting the origin and gen-
uineness of these Oracles excited great interest among the learned in
Europe. Of late this interest appears to have greatly subsided ; indeed
it has almost become extinct, as to any practical purpose. Formerly
the subject was much overrated ; in the not unnatural course of things
it has now come to be as much underrated.

In the meantime the diligent inquirer, who is solicitously seeking light,
from whatever quarter it may come, which may aid him to understand
the writings of the New Testament, will find himself well repaid for an
attentive reading of the Sibylline Oracles. They are, to be sure, as
they now lie before us, a heterogeneous mass of compositions. They
are all, moreover, in the form of Greek verse; but they come from dif-
ferent hands, beng made up by the contributions of heathen, Jewish,
and Christian writers, and they belong to different ages. They contain
some things which are doubtless older than the Christian era; some

88 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

which must have been composed during the first and second centuries
and some which must be assigned to a period after the close of the fourth
century. ‘They have been put together into one mass, ‘by some person
who lived subsequent to this period ; who, in order to make out an a
pearance of unity or connection, has added here and there some passa-
ges for'this purpose ; which, however, may generally be separated from
the original matter of the work, by the tenor of its composition and ed
its incongruity with the context.

The reader, who has had no opportunity for an acquaintance with
this extraordinary book, which has now become rare through want of
interest in the public mind, and consequently a lack of editors, will not
be displeased with some account of it here, as it has a bearing on the
great subject, to the discussion of which the present work is devoted.

The time has been, in very early ages of Christianity, when many
leading Christian writers quoted such of the Sibylline oracles as were
then extant, with almost as much frequency and assurance as they did
the Scriptures themselves. Celsus, the great opposer of Christianity,
(about A. D. 150), derides the Christians for the frequent use they make
of them, and avers that they are plainly the productions, not of heathen
writers; but of Christians who have assumed the name of the Sibyl in
order to deceive. Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, and Cle-
ment of Alexandria, all appeal to them as the work of heathen prophet-
esses ; who, however, were inspired in like manner as the Hebrew pro-
phets, according to their opinion. They supposed, that God had thus
compelled even heathenism itself to bear testimony to the truth and im-
portance of revelation.

In the mean time, not all of the Christian fathers appear to have been
of the same opinion. Irenaeus, Cyprian, and others, do not appeal to
the Sibylline Oracles at all. Origen, when he comes to those objections
of Celsus which have respect to the Christian use of the Sibylline Ora-
cles, tréats them in such a way as to show that he does not think much
of these Oracles. But in the fourth century again we find great stress
laid upon them. Eusebius, Lactantius, and Augustine frequently quote
them. Lactantius appears to have had almost a monomania respecting
their importance ; as he scarcely argues a single point without continu-
ally appealing to them. Eusebius and Augustine are more wary, inas-
much as they seem to feel the difficulty made by the assertion of the
heathen, that they were interpolated, if not wholly composed, by Chris-
tians.

In times subsequent to the age of Eusebius and Lactantius, we find Je-
rome, Optatus, Palladius, Sozomen, Junilius, and others, occasionally ap-
pealing to the Sibylline Oracles. But in most cases, the fathers in gene-
ral appealed to them only when arguing against the heathen in favour of

$ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 89

Christianity ; not in proof of the doctrines of the Christian religion in
general. Their view of them seems to have been, that they might be
employed, to a very important purpose, in the way of argumentum ad
minem. Professing to be the productions of the heathen prophetesses,
Christians were ready"to say to the heathen: Listen to what your own
diviners have declared! Even those fathers, however, who declined to
rely on these Oracles, do not appear to have come out with any decided
declarations against their genuineness or importance. They were not
willing to reject aid in a good cause, let it come from what quarter it
might. If the whole composition were a fictitious matter, still they
deemed it as having a tendency to confirm that which was true and
good.
' During the middle ages these Oracles went almost into desuetude ;
yet more from neglect than opposition. It was not until sometime after
the Reformation, that they were brought into special notice, and made,
at last, the theme of animated discussion. Betuleius, Castalio, Opso-
paus, Casaubon, Scaliger, J. Capell, Blondell, Manesius, Hornbeck, H.
Dodwell, G. J. Vossius, Cotelerius, J. Marck, E. Schmidt, Crasset,
Nehring, Whiston, Beveridge, J. Vossius, Grotius, J. Reiske, Simon,
Du Pin, Tentzel, Daubuz, Gallaeus, Ekhard, and others, engaged more
or less in this discussion, and on different sides of it, some defending the
genuineness of the books in question, and others assailing it and labour-
ing to destroy their credit.

Recently Prof. B. 'Thorlacius of Copenhagen has, after another long
cessation, of interest in the subject, endeavoured to recall the attention of
the learned to the ancient work before us. In a Latin volume, publish-
ed in 1815 (Hafn. 8vo. pp. 172), he has subjected them to a more search-
ing operation of criticism than any which they had before received. Yet
still his undertaking was left in an unfinished state. In 1819 Prof.
Bleek, then a young student at Berlin, published an examination of
Thorlacius,. and of the Sibylline Oracles themselves, which seems in
general to have satisfied the learned in regard to the subject. This
may be found in the Theologische Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, de
Wette, and Liicke, Heft. I. II. I have been greatly assisted by it in
my investigations of the work under consideration, and cheerfully ex-
press my acknowledgments to Prof. Bleek.

The work as heretofore published, consists of e¢ght books. Recently
A. Mai has discovered and published Lib. XI. XII. XIII. XTV. Books
TX. X. remain as yet undiscovered, or at least unpublished; nor do we
know whether there are more than fourteen books. All the lately
discovered books bear evident marks, with a few exceptions, of late com-
position. To a late period, also, must be assigned the first two books,
with the exception of the proem to the first, which consists of ninty-four

VOL. IL. 12

90 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

lines. Of this proem I shall say a word in the sequel, I begin now
with the first book, as it stands in the usual Mss. of the Sibylline

Oracles.

It commences with a description of the creation of the world by the supreme
Being, modelled for the most part after the first chapter of Genesis. The crea-
tion and fall of man are related; and then the biblical history is loosely followed
down to the period of the flood, and thence to the building of Babel. Here, in
order to keep up some semblance of heathen origin, the writer introduces the four
ages of Hesiod, and copies them in his description somewhat closely, with the
exception that he divides Hesiod’s third age into two, which, however, he does
not distinguish from cach other with any good degree of precision. His fifth race
are the giants (=*>"53) who immediately preceded the flood. Noah was an ex-
ception to the general character of this race. He is warned to build an ark. He
preaches to the people and warns them. ‘Two of his sermons are given, He
predicts that Phrygia will be the place where the new development of the human
race will be made, after the destruction by the flood. But his hearers do not lis-
ten to him. The flood comes and destroys them all. At length the waters abate,
and Noah lands on the top of Ararat in Phrygia! All which are in the ark go
forth, and a new and golden age of men begins, the sixth in order from the begin-
ning of the world.

Here the Sibyl, who feigns herself to be a daughter-in-law of Noah, congratu-
lates herself on her escape. She predicts a future Messiah, after some intervening
reigns. The men of the golden age, (the sizth if we reckon the whole, but only

the jist if we count from the flood), peacefully pass into Hades, where they live’

until the judgment; a race of Titans succeed, who undertake the building of Ba-
bel, that they may scale the heavens. These are destroyed; and from these the
writer makes a leap down to the Messianic times, which he describes with evi-
dent reference to the Gospel-history. The miracles, death, resurrection, and as-
cension of Christ are brought nto view; and finally the subjugation and disper-
sion of the Jews by the Romans. p

Book II. is in some Mss. connected with Book I, and is evidently’a continua-
tion of it. It commences with fearful commination of the “ seven hilled city.”
General distress and slaughter succeed, so that the human race become nearly
extinct. Those who remain will be preserved and greatly blessed. A crown of
glory will be held out to view, for all who will enter into the contest against sin,
and obtain the victory over it; especially will the crown be given to martyrs.

Next follow ninety-three verses, taken almost verbatim from the Nov@erimdy of
Pseudo-Phocylides, which are mere moral aphorisms or proverbs. They are an
unquestionable interpolation, and are found only in the Cod. Reg. They are in-
serted by Gallaeus (whose edition I use), after v.55 of Book Il. The connection
is interrupted by them, and it were better to omit them.

Verse 149 seq. the writer goes on to give an account of the disastrous times
which will precede the final judgment, in which war, famine, pestilence, etc.,
will rage. The people of Israel will go to look up the ten tribes, and will per-
ish. Elijah will come from heaven. Fiery flames will consume all things, hea-
ven and earth and Hades. Then follows the summons of all:souls to judgment,
by the angels; the resurrection of the body ; the judgment by the Eternal on his
throne and Christ on his right hand; all will pass through the fires of the last
day ; the righteous to their purification, but the wicked to their final and eternal
ruin and misery; [an idea that savours strongly of the doctrine of purgatory].

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 9L

The Sibyl concludes by confession of sin, and earnest supplication that she may
obtain merey in that tremendous day.

That these two books constitute one composition, coming from the

x same hand, Bleek has rendered altogether probable. At the beginning

_ of Book I. the Sibyl declares that she intends to touch Onmo0on mol yé-

yover, Moou Tv sorir, Ondcou tE edie socec9 ou xooug. This promise

is performed only in case we suppose that Books I. IL. belong to the

same composition. That these books are of late composition, is clear

from the fact, that no writer quotes them until the fifth century. The

matter of them is such, that had Lactantius (for example) known any-

thing of them, he would not have failed to quote them largely ; espe-
cially in his book on eschatology, Instt. VII.

In the edition of Gallaeus, sixty-two verses are prefixed to Book II], which are
foreign to the Oracles. (In like manner this editor has prefixed eighty-four
verses, transcribed from Theophilus ad Autol., to Book I.) Of the sixty-two
verses, thirty-five are monotheistic simply, and evidently are a mere abridgment
of the eighty-four verses just mentioned, which bear the same character. The
remaining twenty-seven verses, (from a different hand), predict the advent of the
Messiah, the punishment of Rome when he again appears, and finally the last
judgment.

Book III. 1-—30, as printed in Gallaeus, contains a description of
Belias [Beliar or Belial], who, with pretended miracles, will deceive
many and lead them astray; after which comes the general judgment.
Probably this constituted originally one and the same piece with the
preceding twenty-seven lines; but some lines have evidently been in-
terpolated. Bleek ascribes this part of the book to an Alexandrine
Jew, who lived about 40 B. C.

Book III. 35—99 exhibits a most singular production, beginning with a mythic
account of Babel, and ending with the fable of Saturn, Rhea, the Titans, Jupiter,
Neptune, and Pluto. - From a heathen hand it must have come; or else from one
which designedly imitated the manner of the heathen. It seems to be the oldest
piece in the whole work; and a part of it (the commencement) is quoted by Jo-
sephus, and also by Alexander Polyhistor (about 140 B, C.); so that it must be
nearly 200 years older than the Christian era. The reception of this into the
Sibylline Oracles, wears the appearance of having been made with design to es-
tablish their pretences to.a heathen origin.

Book III. 100—133 contains a brief sketch of the Jewish empire under Solo-
mon; then of the Greek domination, then of the Macedonian; and lastly of the
Roman, which is to end with the seventh king of Egypt who is of Greek origin.
This must have been written by some Jew, at least some twenty or thirty years,
perhaps more, before the Christian era.—Verse 134 begins a new strain. The
writer designs to predict evils earlier and later. After comminations against va-
rious uations, he comes to the Jews. He relates the striking incidents of their
history, from their origin in Ur down to the Babylonish exile and the re-building
of the temple.—After this, with verse 233 commences a new strain of commina-
tion. Babylon is severely threatened because it had burned the house of God.
Egypt also will be-destroyed; and here the writer seems to allude plainly to the

92 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

civil wars between Ptolemy Philometor and his brother Physcon, about 170—160
B.C. The land of Gog and Magog is next threatened; which is placed in Ethio-
pia. Then follows Libyia and the regions of the West, which “ have helped to
lay waste the house of God.’ This ‘last declaration seems to allude to the Ro-
mans ; and if so, it must be an interpolation, as the piece is evidently of a date
anterior to the Christian era, and from the hand of a Jew.—Verses 272—318 ex-
hibit another and somewhat different strain, although comminatory. Many towns
of Asia and Europe are named, which will be destroyed; in which the author
makes several mistakes in his geography. Rome is also severely threatened, and
several of the Grecian islands. ‘Then will succeed a prosperous and happy era,
both for Asia and Europe. The earth shall produce abundantly, and all the vir-
tues shall be predominant.—This is probably a mixed piece, extracted from differ-
ent writers before and after the Christian era. There is. some good reason for
this conclusion, because vs. 289—318 wear the appearance of having come from a
Christian hand, from one who had felt the bitterness of Romish persecution and
sighed for deliverance. :

The rest of this book, excepting merely twenty lines at the close, consists of a
series of pieces, loosely joined together by some connecting links, which are filled
with commination against almost all countries, but especially those belonging to the
empire of Rome, Greece, and Egypt—all of which, in their turn, more or less op-
pressed and vexed the Jews who lived in Palestine or in Egypt. Bleek thinks
that they must have been written by some Alexandrine Jew during the time of
the Maccabees, 1 e. somewhere about 170—160 B.C. I find only now ang then
a passage which would seem to contradict this view; and such passages may in

all probability be ascribed to some interpolating Christian hand of a later period ;-

for such an one must doubtless have added the last twenty lines of the book.
On the other hand, excepting the passages adverted to, everything seems to be
viewed and described with the feelings of a Jew, probably an Egyptian Jew, who
occasionally resents the wrongs done by the Romans and others to Egypt.

To him who reads this book for the purpose of New Testament crit-
icism, those parts of it will have a special interest which relate to the
expected Messianic age. Frequently does the writer recur to this
theme, at the close of the different pieces which compose the book.
Always is the period, as described by him, preceded by wars and tumults
and distresses of various kinds. "When these come to an end, the writer
expects the “ Prince of peace” to come and fill the earth with blessings.
The reader may find, in the proem to Book III, a passage of this na-
ture on p. 3825 seq. (in the edition of Gallaeus who has not. numbered
the lines), where it is said: “ The holy king of all the earth shall come,
who shall wield the sceptre during all the ages of swiftly moving time.”
On p. 408 seq. is another Messianic passage, which, however, is prob-
ably from a later anda Christian hand: ‘ The prince of peace is to come ;
all Asia and Europe to be happy ; all vices, hatred, injustice, wars, ete.
are to be done away, and every kind of evil.” On p. 447 seq. is another
long Messianic passage probably from a Jew; and so the sequel. After
the wars of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Romans are described, the
writer again recurs to the Messianic period, p. 460 seq., in which “the

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 93

people of the great God” [the Jews] shall be enriched with every
blessing. After ‘they have been again attacked by enemies, God.
will vindicate their cause again, destroy all their enemies, and introduce
' “the reign of peace,” p. 465 seq... Here the description of the happy
time which is to follow, is a protracted one ;. and it is closed by a refer-
ence to the passage in Ezek. 39:9 seq., where the armour of Gog and
Magog is to serve for a long time the purposes of fuel for all the inhabi-
tants of the land.

After exhortations and counsel once more addressed to the enemies
of God and of his people, the writer, (probably, as before, an Alexan-
drian Jew about 170—160 B. C.), relapses into his Messianic strain. I
had transcribed, and would fain give a specimen of his manner, (which
would also serve as an example of the manner in which the Jews of his
time thought and wrote respecting the Messianic period), for the grati-
fication of the reader who may not be able to procure or consult the book
itself. But my limits forbid. I can merely refer to a passage which
is somewhat above the ordinary level, beginning (in the edition of Gal-
laeus) on p. 473, Onmore xai tovzo0, x. t. 2., comprising vs. 686—746.
A part of this, however, I have translated as literally as I could, and
will subjoin it in a note below, thatthe reader, who has not the book
in question, may be enabled to see for himself the tenor of its compo-
sition.* e

*«¢ And when this shall come to an end [viz. the things related in the preced-
ing context], the day of the Almighty, decreed in the beginning, shall come upon
good men. The productive earth shall yield its boundless store of best fruit for
mortals, of wheat, wine, and oil. Then [will he give] from above the delicious
drink of sweet honey, and trees, and the fruit of fruit-trees, and fat sheep, and
oxen, and the lambs of sheep, and the kids of goats; and he will make the sweet
fountains to burst forth with white milk. The cities, moreover, shall be full of
good things; and the fields shall be rich; there shall be no more sword on the
earth, nor alarm of war, nor shall the earth any more with heavy groans be sha-
ken. There shall be no war, nor drought upon the earth, nor famine, nor hail
threatening the fruits. There shall, besides this, be great peace through all the
world, and one king shall be the friend of another until the end of the age; and
a common law for all the earth shall the Eterna] in the starry heaven make per-
fect for.men, as to whatever is done by bad men. For he only is God, and there
is no other. He will also burn with fire the cruel rage of men.

Earnestly intent in your breasts upon my opinions, avoid sinful worship ; serve
the Living One; keep yourself from adultery and forbidden intercourse with
males; nourish your own children, and do not destroy them. For the Eternal
will be angry with those who commit such sins.

Then will he set up a perpetual kingdom over all men, when he gives his holy
law to the pious; to all has he promised to open the earth, and the gates of the
world of the blessed, every kind of joy ; also perpetual wisdom, and endless glad-
ness. From all the earth shall they bring frankincense and gifts to the house of
the great God; nor shall there be any other house, where consultation shall be

94 §. 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

The particular view which has been given of the third book, will
serve to show the reader what the general strain and nature of the Sibyl-
line oracles are; and moreover, it discloses what a real misch-masch
they are, as they have come down to us, heathen, Jewish, and Chris-
tian authors being all thrust together into the same piece, and merely
joined by some transition-verses which are from a later hand. These,
however, are often so unskilfully composed, that they can scarcely serve
to mislead even the uncritical reader.

Book IV. is plainly and undoubtedly from a Christian hand ; and if
we may judge from internal evidence, from some one who wrote soon
after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

The Sibyl commences by declaring herself to be no prophetess of “ lying Phoe-
bus,” but of the “ great God, the creator of all things,” whose universal empire
she describes. Happy the men, she proceeds to say, who obey him ; miserable
will be all who practice the vices of the impious, especially false accusers and
persecutors. [This seems to refer to the cruel persecutions of Nero. ]

The past and present period of the world, beginning from the flood, is divided
by the Sibyl into eleven ages; each of which is characterized by empires. To the
Assyrian is Pieced six; to the Median, two; to the Persian, one ; to the Mace-
donian, one; and the eleventh falls of course to the Romans. During this the
writer seems to have lived. _War, pestilence, famine, earthquakes, etc., are, as
usual, threatened to many countries; a famine of twenty years is assigned to
Egypt. Destruction in Sicily, from the voleanic overflowing of Etna, is describ-
ed at some length. The writer leaps hastily from one country to another, until
he comes down to the dominion of the Romans, on which he dwells longer. He
refers to the supposed flight of Nero into the East; for so the belief of the pop-
ulace at Rome appears for a time to have been, at the period when Nero was
secretly assassinated. Thus the Sibyl: “ And then a king from Italy, energetic
in action, dark in his designs, perfidious, shall fly beyond the river Euphrates,
when he shall have committed the crime of the horrid murder of his mother,
and many other [crimes], confiding in his malignant power.” [This passage, and

made by men ofa future age, but that which God has given to faithful men’ to
reverence. [By another reading : “ But they shall reverence the faithful man
whom God has given; for mortals shall call him the Son of the great God;”
which, no doubt, is a Christian interpolation, but so it stands in the Greek text of
Gallaeus]. And all the paths of the field, and the rough shores, and the lofty
mountains, and the raging waves of the ocean, shall be safely travelled over and
sailed upon, in those days. The abundant peace of the good shall extend over
the earth. The prophets of the great God shall take away the sword; for they
shall be the judges and the just kings of mortals. Riches shall be lawfully ac-
quired among men. The dominion and the judgment of the great God shall be
the same, [i. e. both shall be universal]. ...The wolves and the bears shall eat
grass together on the mountains, and the leopards shall feed with the kids. The
bears shall dwell in the same herd with the calves, and the carnivorous lion
shall eat straw at the stall, like the ox, and children, the very babes, shall lead
them in bands ; even the maimed shall be a terror on earth to the beasts, and dra-
gons shall repose by the side of infants, nor shall they harm them. The hand
of God shall be over them, etc.”

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 95

others of the like tenor, are supposed by most. expositors, at present, to have an
important bearing on the exegesis of Rev. 17: 10, 11]. The Romans shall come
and lay waste. ‘the broad fields of the Jews.” The overflowing of Vesuvius
under Titus (A. D. 79) appears to be next described; and then the punishment
of the Romans, who shall experience the wrath of the God of heaven, because
they have destroyed the guiltless race of the pious [Christians]. “‘ Then shall also
come the contest of excited war, and the great fugitive from Rome [Nero], brand-
ishing his spear, and passing the Euphrates with many thousands of men.” [This
refers to the popular belief among early Christians, that Nero was to come from
the. East, as Antichrist, and conquer Rome, and again persecute Christians ; a be-
lief which seems to have taken its rise from 2 Thess. 2: 3 seq.,' respecting the
mun of sin, the son of perdition.]

Then follow several comminations against different places and countries ; after
these are fulfilled, great persecution is to arise; the writer exhorts to penitence
and reformation, and concludes by giving assurance of the destruction of the
earth, of the resurrection, and of the general judgment. After this is to come
the millennial state upon earth. ‘ Again the friends of piety shall live on the
earth, God giving breath and life and support to all the pious. Most blessed the
man, who shall live at such a time!”

Several of the declamations against various countries and places, wear
the same appearance as the preceding: heathen oracles of such a nature ;
and there is little room for doubt, that these were taken from heathen
compositions, and incorporated by the writer with his own, in order to
further the purposes of concealment.

Boor V. This, like Book III. is made up of a great variety of
compositions. Verses 1—51, are from the hand of a Christian, and
probably, a Christian Jew; for he gives a brief history of the Roman
emperors, down to Adrian, following throughout the plan of designat-
ing them by numerical quantities which the first letters of their names
respectively designate ; and when he comes to Vespasian, he calls him
svoebéwv dderno, i. e. the destroyer of the pious. This seems to exhibit
a strong Jewish sympathy.

There is nothing remarkable in this first piece, except that Nero, that “deeds
Oges, the matricide,” is represented as returning after his supposed death, divid-
ing the narrow isthmus-water [the Bosphorus], and setting himself up for a god,
and thus coming to destruction ; comp. 2 Thess..2: 3 seq. The writer doubtless
lived in the time of Trajan, whom he highly compliments, calling him ravdgvore ,
aavesoye, xvavoyoita. Probably the author lived in Egypt; as internal evidence
shows. Verse 51, which refers to a later period, seems to be plainly an interpola-

on.
Verses 52—259 constitute a series of oracles, probably composed or digested by
the same hand from which come the preceding verses. Verses 52—110 deplore
the fate of Memphis and of idolatrous Egypt. In the sequel Nero is represented
as laying waste Egypt and all the world, until a great king [the Messiah] appears,
and overthrows all kings; after which comes the end of all things. Verses
111—178 are filled with comminations against Persia and the East, Asia Minor,
and the Grecian islands. This part seems to be heathen oracles taken into con-
nection with the writer’s own composition. The ‘latter part (verses 137—178)

96 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

relates to Nero, and repeats the usual story of his flying to the East, returning
thence with great force, and laying waste the world. Finally Rome, “ which has
destroyed the faithful saints of the Hebrews and the true temple, shall be brought
to utter desolation.” [Here the Jewish Christian appears.] From the vivid
manner in which the writer speaks of these things, it would seem that this piece
must have been composed not long after the destruction of Jerusalem. Verses
129—246 contain comminatory declamations against a multitude of countries,
and end again with the description of Nero’s return and the evils which he will
perpetrate. This is followed bya Messianic passage (verses 246—285), in which
‘the divine Jewish race’ are represented as inhabiting a city in mid-earth [the
centre of the world], which reaches even to Joppa. ‘To this city Jesus, who was
crucified, shall return, and address to its inhabitants words of consolation and
peace. ' Verse 264 speaks of the Grecian empire over the East as ceasing ; which
seems to point to a time when at least that part of the piece now before us was
composed. But if it was composed before the Christian era, as Bleek supposes,
it has doubtless been interpolated. Verses 286—332 contain denunciations, as
usual, against a multitude of cities, and refers. to a number of those in Asia
Minor as overthrown by earthquakes ; [which happened about A. D. 19, accord-
ing to Euseb. Chronicon]. It ends with praying for happiness to Judea, disting-
uished by blessings. above all the earth. Probably, therefore, this was written
before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Verses 333—341 denounce Thrace, the Hellespont, Egypt, and several towns in
Asia Minor. They wear the appearance of heathen origin. Verses 342—385 de-
nounce Italy in severe terms. The luminaries of heaven shall withdraw their
splendour, and God will punish with elenting and awful severity, unless the
worship of idols shall be forsaken, and himself alone adored. Here again comes
in the man of sin, the son of perdition. ‘‘ The matricide shall come from the ends
of the earth [the regions beyond the Euphrates], the fugitive from notice, whet-
ting his sharp teeth, who shall destroy all the land, have universal dominion, and
devise everything with more cunning than all men. Her [Rome] by whom he
was destroyed [alluding pio assassination] he shall speedily seize upon, and

destroy many men, and 2s of high rank. All shall he burn ‘as he formerly
did in another condition.’ hether the author means the burning of Rome, or
of Christians, or both, it is difficult to decide ; but the allusion is very significant. ]
The writer then goes on with his description of the extent and horrors of thes
‘war thus excited by Nero; all the elements join at last in the onset of battle, and
contest will finally come to an end for want of victims. Then comes the reign of
peace, which however is here but briefly hinted. Here the piece might end, and
perhaps did once end ; but the echo of it is kept up by inserting a piece which is
probably from another hand; verses 386—433. Warning is given against all the
vices prevalent at Rome. The perpetual fires of Vesta will be extinguished ; [the
temple of Vesta was burned when Nero set Rome on fire, A. D. 64]. “ The long-
beloved house was burned by thee [Rome], when I saw the second temple cast
down headlong, wrapped in flames by an impious hand [that of Titus] ;—the
house always flourishing, the temple dedicated to the service of God; the object
of joy to the saints, evermore incorruptible, in soul and body the object of hope ;
neither will one inadvertently praise a god of contemptible earth, nor a stone has
any skilful artificer fitted superior to those ; the gold of the world, the lure of
souls, is not worshipped ; but the great God, the parent of all who draw the
breath divinely imparted, do they honor with sacrifices and sacred hecatombs;’’
p: 623 seq. The writer proceeds to show how an dams Baordels nar évayvos

§$ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 97

[Titus], with a great army, cast down the temple, and ranged through the holy
land; an unexpected ojwa to mortals. Then comes ‘the man from the heavenly
heights,” [the Messiah], who restores all things, subdues all enemies, rebuilds
“the city beloved of God,” and makes it ‘ more splendid than stars, or sun, or
moon ;’ builds its tower so that it “reaches to the clouds ;” and finally, makes
it“ dé&ar didiov Feov, a most desirable spectacle, the East and West celebrate the
honour of God, nor shall evils any more come upon timid mortals.’’ All vices
shall cease. These are “the last times of the saints, introduced by God, who
thunders on high, the maker of the greatest of all temples.”

Such are the interesting themes of verses 886—433. One scarcely
knows whether he should regard the author as a Jew or a Christian.
A Jewish Christian, with strong sympathies for his land, capital, and
worship, might have written the whole ; but there is nothing here which
a Jew might not have written, who merely cherished strong Messianic
hopes as to the future. The colouring seems on the whole, however,
to be more of the Jewish than of the Christian hue. I must therefore
suppose, that a Jew, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, wrote
the piece before us. It is full of instruction as to the views, feelings,
hopes, and expectations of the Jews, at the period in which it was writ-
ten; and in particular does it cast light on the popular expectations
respecting Vere ; which is an important circumstance, as we shall here-
after see. Bleek thinks the whole might have been written by a Chris-
tian, and that it may be allegorically interpreted as having respect to
the christian church; although, on the whole, he rather inclines to a dif-
ferent exegesis. It does not seem to me, that the allegorical interpre-
tation is here allowable. I must believe the piece to have been written
not long after the death of Nero, when the of his reappear-
ance was strong and general among the populace. —

Verses 434—483 inveigh against Babylon, and many other places. Famine,
inundations, earthquakes, etc., are threatened to Asia and Europe. When, or by
whom, it was written, there is no satisfactory internal evidence. Verses 484—551
are threatenings directed against Ngypt. Her gods shall perish. The priests
themselves will demand that the great God shall be worshipped, his honours be
restored, and his temple built. The Ethiopians shall invade the land, and destroy
the temple ; and then all the powers of heaven and all the stars shall contend
against them, precipitate themselves on the earth and burn it up; so that the
heavens shall become évaorégos. Thus ends the book.

This last piece appears plainly to be from the hand of an Egyptian
Jew; who seems to allude to the Jewish temple built at Leontopolis
about 150 B. C., and who probably wrote when this was, or was about
tobe, destroyed. Nearer than this we cannot come to his age.

Boox VI. This contains only twenty-eight verses ; and these are a
hymn to the Son of God, although it is clothed in a prophetic garb.
Lactantius quotes it; but no Christian writer before him ; so that it

VOL. I. 13

98 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

was probably written some time during the latter part of the third cen-
tury, or early in the fourth, by some Christian.

The writer celebrates the “ uwéyar vidy, to whom the Most High has given a
throne.” His baptism, the descent of the Spirit as a dove, his office as teacher,
his miracles, are alluded to; then follows a description of his universal dominion,
and of the peaceful state of the earth. Denunciation against the land of Sodom
[Judea, see Is. 1: 10] follows, which crowned the son of God with thorns, and
gave him gall to drink. ‘“O most blessed cross!” the writer exclaims, ‘on
which 9eég was suspended. The earth shall not contain thee [Gedy], but thou
shalt see the heavenly temple, where the renewed and brightened face of the
Godhead shall shine.”

Boox VII. Lactantius has quoted verse 122 of this book (Instt.
VII. 16) ; but besides this, we find no other quotations among the an-
cient Christian writers. The book, as to most of its contents, is in all
probability from one and the same hand. Its author seems to have been
a Christian Jew, living some time during the latter half of the third
century. Itis evidently full of interpolations ; and it also exhibits strong
evidence of having suffered excisions or defalcations. E. g. the very
first verse begins with”Eoon 6& 2ew7y a0dewy; which of course indi-
cates that there was once some preceding context. Verses 65—94 con-
tain a hymn of a Gnostic character, which was probably added, by a
later hand, to the original composition.

Denunciation is, as usual, the order of the day. Delos, Sicily, Cyprus, Phry-
gia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Laodicea, are threatened with destruction in different
ways. Verses 23—34 contains a Messianic passage, which is obscure, and prob-
ably an interpolation. It introduces the yeyyydsis 6 uéyag Beds, as creating the
stars ; he will be king of all, and king of peace ; “all shall be completed by the
Davidic house ; God has given him the throne, and angels sleep at his feet,” even
those who preside over fire, water, cities, and winds. The denunciatory strain is
now continued, after a dark passage (verses 35—49) out of which 1 can make no
tolerable sense. Ilium, Colophon, Thessalia, Corinth, Tyre, and Coele-Syria, are
all threatened, Then follows the Gnostico-Christological hymn, verses 65—94,
the matter of which is very curious. “ Unhappy,” says the writer addressing
some place or land (probably Judea), “ who didst not know thy God, who was
washed in the stream of Jordan, and on whom the Spirit lighted.” “ He was be-
fore the stars; was made prince by the word of the Father and by the pure Spirit.
After his incarnation, he speedily left the earth to go to his Father’s house. In
heaven three towers are built for him, in which the Osov.. » uytégss eoThat
dwell.’ Then, after disclaiming ritual worship and sacrifices, the writer adds
this singular passage: “Thou, with all thy relatives, shalt take wild fowl, and
making supplication thou shalt send them forth; then directing thine “en to
heaven, and pouring water upon the pure fire, thrice shalt thou exclaim: Father
etc.’ The matter of the prayer is then given; but to me it is quite unintelligi-
ble, and, no doubt, it conceals the Gnostic Bad7. The piece ends with exhorta-
tions to practise the Christian virtues.

After this, the general strain of the original piece is resumed. Sardinia,

: : Mys-
donia, Celtiguae [Gauls], and finally Rome, Syria, and Thebes, ys

are denounced.

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLEs. 99

Fire shall destroy the whole. Especially shall false prophets be punished, who
feign themselves to be Hebrews. To a time of general destruction shall succeed
the renovation of the earth, which shall spontaneously produce all that is needed,
and God shall dwell with men and teach them.

The remainder of the book (verses 145—156) contains a confession of many
aggravated sins on the part of the Sibyl, even that of incest. It seems plainly to
be a mere imitation of the end of Book Il., and therefore must have been written
after the end of the fourth‘century. It is doubtless an interpolation here ; and a
miserable one too, for it places the Sibyl below the common order of prostitutes.
The object however is, to show that the piece is of heat en origin.

Boox VIII. This consists probably of many different pieces, but
so loosely and unskilfully put together, that it is very difficult, as Bleek
intimates, to decide whether it has one or twenty authors.

It commences with the declaration, that the Siby] is going to disclose the wrath
of God against the whole world. All things shall be burned up. Avarice is the
great sin that occasions all evils ; it would exclude the poor from the world if it
could. Rome shall first fall. After thrice five kings Adrian shall succeed, who
will deify a boy [Antinous]. After him shall reign three, who live in the last
times.”” [The writer doubtless means Antoninus Pius, and his two s Marcus
and Lucius Verus.]' The kings heap up riches, which “ the matricide fugitive,
coming from the ends of the earth, will distribute to all, and make Asia very
rich.” Nothing shall stand before him. Then the end of all things shall come
and the judgment of God. Rome shall be plunged into a lake of fire and brim.
stone, and her wailings be heard by all. _ Then follows a picture of her miseries,
seemingly intended to resemble the wailings over Babylon in Rev. xviii. Verses
131—160 consist of one or more pieces relating to the same subject, viz., the
fall of Rome, and the victorious return and cruel excesses of Nero. ‘+ No longer
shalt thou,” [queen of cities], says the Sibyl, “have empire over the fields of
fruitful Rome, when the ruler shall come from Asia with Mars. When this is
done he shall come with violence against the city” [Rome], verses 145—147.
Again : “From the Asiatic country shall be come in Trojan chariots, with vehement
indignation. Surveying all, he marches on, passing over the sea [the Hellespont];
and then black blood shall accompany the great beast. The dog has produced a
lion, which will destroy the shepherds. [Q. Nero, at first only a zvwiv, has now
become a Aéwy ?] But they shall take away his sceptre, and he shall go down to
Hades.” [Comp. Rev. 17: 8,11.] This whole piece wears the air of being com-
posed earlier than the preceding part of the book, which (verse 50 seq.) refers to
thrice five kings of Rome, and particularly to Adrian, then again (65) to Antoninus
Pius and his two sons, Marcus and Lucius Verus. The wogtijowy... ‘“Efoatow
Z9vog of verses 140, 141 must be either Titus or Adrian; I should incline to the
former, because the predictions respecting Nero’s return seem to be of such a
character as must have been current soon after his death. Verse 148 speaks of
948 years [i.e. A. U.C. = A. D. 194], as the time of Rome’s duration. But this
verse appears to me to be adscititious, being later than the surrounding context.
Verses 160—168 denounce Rhodes, Thebes, Rome, Delos, Samos, and Persia, in
the usual style. To this succeed two verses which seem to be Messianic: ‘ Then
shall a pure king reign over all the earth forever, raising the dead.” Verses
171—215 are a singular, and (to me in many places) unintelligible mixture.
Whose is the Onhoréons ... wéya upcicos . . .orey Baorkijida cypy orepopéry tUY2,

100 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

1 wot not, unless it be the church under the symbol of a woman. A millennial
season is described as following this xedtos, after the resurrection from the dead.

Next follow thirty-four lines, which constitute an acrostic with the name “In-
covg Xessords [sic !] Deov vids, owr7e, otavgds. The inatter of them has respect
to the final judgment and destruction of the world, the punishment of the wicked
and the joys of the pious. Lactantius has cited some of these verses; but he in-
timates nothing respecting the acrostic in them. There can searcely be a doubt,
therefore, that this part was composed after his time, by selecting here and there
a verse, altering some, and composing others. The piece has very little close
connection ; as we may well suppose.

Next follows a kind of historical account of the incarnation, miracles, sufferings,
death, and resurrection of Christ, with continual allusion. to facts related in the
Gospels. Zion is called on to rejoice in her king, and to acknowledge airéy cov
Oey, sou vidv Zorro, Spiritual worship must she pay him.—After this all things
shall be destroyed; and the particulars are given with an unusual degree of po-
etic spirit. God has revealed all his secrets to the Sibyl, (so she proceeds), and
she understands the nature and times of all things. She then extols the divine
unity, and denounces idolatry inveighing against its follies and its rites at length.
The moral virtues are next commended, and the rewards and punishments of the
judgment day propounded. With v. 429 a new strain seems to begin, which
must be assigned to quite a late period. The sovereign and creative power of God
is first celebrated. Then the incarnation of the Logos follows with the annun-
ciation of Gabriel, the rejoicing of heaven and earth at his birth, the visit and
homage of tle Magi and of the shepherds. Christians must offer pure and spirit-
ual worship to God, and never join in any of the rites of idols. In this piece,
v. 463 gives to the virgin Mary the appellation of 7 ade) xove7; which shows that
it probably was not composed until after the fourth century ; for it was after that
period when the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity began to \be discussed.
Thus ends the eight books, which have, until recently, comprised all that was
known in modern times respecting the Sibylline Oracles. ;

Since the publication of Bleek’s critical examination of the eight books
of the Sibylline Oracles, A. Mai, in his Nova Collectio Scriptt. Vet.
Ii. p. 202 seq., has published: Books XI—XIV, which he found in the
Libraries of Italy ; so that only Books IX. X. are now wanting, in order
to complete fourteen books of this most singular relic of antiquity.
As I have not been able to procure a copy of this work of Mai, and
therefore have had no opportunity to examine the remaining books of
the work before us, I shall here subjoin, ina note, a brief account of
the books recently discovered, as given by F. Liicke in his Introduction
to the Apocalypse, p. 122 seq.*

v

*«¢ The dryness and uniformity of tone, in a word, the whole manner of these
books, is the same as in the first eight. The religious and doctrinal elements,
however, are much less apparent. Book XI. contains a Sibylline representation
of Jewish, Grecian, Macedonian, Romish, and Egyptian history, from the flood
down to Julius Caesar. The tone is apparently Jewish. It resembles, in par-
ticular, that of Book LIT. ; and in part it exhibits the same expressions and verses;
e. g. v. 161 seq. respecting Homer, comp. Book HI. v. 357 seq.; v. 200 ners
respecting Alexander the Great, comp. Book If]. v. 319 seq. Asa whole, how-

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 101

Ido not learn that any special aid is to be derived from these addi-
tional books, to the purposes of New Testament criticism and exegesis.
Bleek, it seems, has not deemed them to be of sufficient importance to
continue his Sibylline criticisms ; which he promised to do, in case there

should appear to be sufficient reason, when these latter books were pub-
lished.

A hasty or superficial reader may judge the time and pains bestowed
on such books as these, to be but illy laid out. I can assure him that
he is much in the wrong, and that the study of them helps to place one
in the ancient circle of thought, reasoning, and expression, among both
Jews and Christians, to which, in case he means to pursue critical studies,
it is of no small importance for him to attain. The Sibylline Oracles,
so far as I can judge, do not.contain more than one or two seemingly
designed imitations of the Apocalypse. Book VIII. v..104 seq. con-
tains a lament over Rome, evidently, as I think, designed to imitate
Rev. xviii. But in all the Messianic passages, and in all the millennial
ones, although there are of course many points of coincidence with the
Apocalypse, yet there does not seem to be any, or scarcely any, de-

ever, the character of the composition is somewhat different, sometimes more com-
pressed, at other times more diffuse; in general the connection is more close. In
all probability it isa Jewish Alexandrine production, and of a date a little before
the Christian era.. Or is it merely an imitation of such a production?”

“ Book XII, in its commencement, resembles the beginning of Book V. It
holds the same course. The series of Roman emperors, from Augustus down-
wards, is described in the Sibylline manner ; but under Augustus the appearance
ofthe Saviour is made the subject of special notice ; which is not the case in
Book III. While in Book III. the account is brought down only to Adrian, in
Book XII. it is continued down to Alexander Severus, to whom it leaps from
Septimius Severus, [omitting Caracalla and Heliogabalus]. It is much mutilated
at the close ; yet it is clear that it stops with Alexander Severus. Perhaps, in
accordance with the probable meaning of v. 287, which is somewhat obscure, it
was written in the year 222, after the death of Alexander Severus.”

«‘ Book XIII. narrates, in a Sibylline manner, the wars, especially the oriental
wars, of the Romish empire, down to Valerian and Gallienus in the middle of the
third century. But with what emperor the narration commences, T am not able
to conjecture; perhaps with the time succeeding Alex. Severus. The central
point appears to be Egypt. The account of the mathematical fame of Bostra [in
Phenicia] v. 67 seq., is a remarkable circumstance.”

«« Book XIV. is obscure. The destruction of Rome, however, is a prominent
feature of it, v. 31 seq.; then follows the rebuilding of the same, v. 125 seq. The
circumstance is noted, that Rome furnishes itself with provisions for one whole
year, in expectation of a long season of distress. The last of the Latin race of
emperors appears and passes away ; but after him comes a race of kings who con-
tinue a long time. The irruption of the northern hordes, and the fall of the wes-
tern Roman empire, stand prominent everywhere. The whole may probably have
been composed in the fifth century.”

102 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

pendence of the one composition on the other. A coincidence, then, as
to matter or manner between the two writings, affords us, under such
circumstances, the more satisfactory testimony as to the modes of think-
ing and speaking on Messianic subjects, during the early ages of Chris-
tianity. More or less of illustration by means of the Sibylline Oracles,
in regard to difficult passages in the Apocalypse, or in respect to those
whose aesthetical character has been severely questioned, the reader will
find in the sequel of the present work.

There are moreover so many passages, in these Oracles, of a mil-
lennial character; so many that describe the wrongs and sufferings of
those who were persecuted on account of their religion; so many that:
threaten destruction and ample retribution to heathen and cruel Rome;
so many that have regard to the beast, the man of sin and the son of
perdition [Nero]; so many that bring to view the future prosperity and
glory of the church; that every judicious reader must perceive at once,
how near the prominent and principal subjects of these books come to
the all pervading subjects of the Apocalypse. How can it be, that the
one should not cast some light upon the matter and manner of the other ?

As a specimen now of what may be gathered from such a book as this,
to illustrate some peculiarities in the style of the Apocalypse, let us turn
our attention to Rev. 13: 18, where the name of the beast, which sym-
bolizes Rome, is said to designate the number 666, and to be agud yds
ev dgozon, i. e. reckoned after the usual mode among men of counting
numbers. This has been put by some to the account of Cabbalism, in
the writer of the Apocalypse; or it has even been regarded by others
as only a kind of childish trifling with so grave a subject. But that
such modes of designating names, which were not intended to be spoken
out directly and yet were designed to be made known to the reader,
were common in ancient times, appears plainly from the Sibylline Ora-
cles. E. g. in Book IL v. 141 seq. (p. 115), Jehovah, in addressing
Noah, is represented, instead of declaring his own name directly, as
propounding it in the following terms:

*Bvvéa yodupar Fyo, tespaovdda Bes siue, vdee “es
Ai resis ai medtae Ovo yedupar Zyovow éxcorn,
‘HI houny 08 hour , nok siolv Kpuve Ta TévTE.

Tov mavtds 0 égrdwou Exarovrddss siot dig dxtol,
Kai resis regis dexcidss odv ¥ ind.

That is: “I have nine letters, and am of four syllables ; consider me ;
[i. e. reflect well what name corresponds with this]. The first three
[syllables] have each two letters; the remaining one the rest [of the
letters]. Five of them are consonants. In respect to the whole num-
ber, it is twice 800, and three times three decades, with seven.”

It does not appear from the context, after all, what the name is, and

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 108

different names have been conjectured. The word aréxpavos (unspeak-
able) seems to correspond best to the description. This word has five
consonants ; the first three syllables have each two letters; the number
amounts indeed only to 1696; but with the addition of a povas, i.e.
unity or one, the megrextinds, &toxatactazinds, xo MoocAaUBuros aovd-
110g, i. e. the comprehensive, restorative, and helping number, (as the
Platonists and Pythagoreans call it), makes out the number in question.
The whole agrees entirely with the ancient notion, that the name of
Jehovah was apewyryzos, (as Josephus says), and was known only to the
high-priest of the Jews. Avéxqevos is not indeed a common Greek
word; but it is formed analogically, and corresponds so well, both in re-
spect to number and signification, with the intention of the Sibyllist,
that it does not seem to be improbable that this word was intended. So
Gallaeus, in a note upon the passage.

Again, in vs. 325 seq. (p. 177), the Sibyllist, having concluded the
account of the flood, and the return of its waters, predicts the coming of
the Messiah: “Then the Son of the great God, clothed in flesh, shall
come to men, being made like to mortal men on the earth:

Ticoupa powrsvta. piguv, td0” Kpave ev ata
Avsosvt ayyéihhoy, dovdudy 8 chor ékovopqro.
"Oxra yao povddas, réooas Oexddas ét rovtoss
"HO éxarovrddas dure, dmrotoxdgors avTowmorg
Ovvope, Onddos.”

That is: “Producing four vowels, and announcing doubly the con-
sonants, the whole number I will recount. His name shall designate to
unbelieving men eight monads [unities], so many decades added to
these, and also 800.” In other words: The name Jjoov¢ has four
vowels, and one consonant which is doubled. In reckoning these, 1 =
10, 4 = 8, 6 = 200, 0o= 70, v = 400, ¢ = 200; the whole sum = 888.
How much this resembles the 666 of Rey. 13: 18, is too plain to be in-
sisted on.*

In Book V. vs. 11 seq., the succession of Roman emperors down to
Adrian is marked, by referring to the numerical value of the first letter
in one of their leading names; e. g. “ he whose name signifies twice ten
stands at the head of the series,” meaning Kaioag, or Julius Caesar, where
K =20. . “ Next follows he whose name is the first of the alphabet,”
i.e. Augustus ; “then he whose name marks 300,” i. e. Tiberius ; “then
he whose name marks 3,” i. e. aioe, i. e. Caius Caligula; then K =

* The second clause, viz. rad” dgova éy ait, Avoodrr ayyéldwy, is a text
which I have formed from that of the Cod. Reg. and Puteanus. The common
text, 740° dqwva dy ata Oooay dyyéduy, is plainly corrupt, and yields no intel-
ligible meaning. The text as I have proposed it, makes some appropriate mean-
ing possible.

104 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

80, i.e. Khaddwe, Claudius; next NV =50, i. e. Mjomv, Nero; then
Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are not specifically named, but adverted to
as destroying each other; next comes Ovecnactav0s, 0 = 70; then Ti-
ros, t = 300; then Aouiriavoe, d= 4; Nerva, y= 50; Trajan, 7 =
300; then Adrian, “who has the name of a sea” (the Adriatic). In his
reign the writer in all probability lived; so that it could have been but
a little while after the Apocalypse was written, when this mode of de-
signation was employed.

Besides these, there is the acrostic piece, of which an account is given
on p. 100 above.

Now as none of these reckonings appear to be grounded at all on the
Apocalypse,* they serve, as independent testimony, to show what the
taste of the early ages of Christianity was, when matters of this nature
were to be designated in a prophetic way, and names were not intended
to be plainly and directly spoken. If there be any conceit in this, John
does not stand alone, at all events. I accede to the truth of the remark,
that the taste of our times is different; but I am not aware, that ina
matter of so delicate a nature as that with which John was concerned in
the Apocalypse, 1. e. in speaking of the Roman emperors under whose
dominion he lived, he could well have managed this business with more
caution and delicacy than he has done, provided that at the same time ~
he felt bound (as he doubtless did) to declare the whole truth so that it
might be understood. A heathen magistrate would be likely to read
Rey. 18:18 with scorn or with disregard; Christians would naturally
seek with deep interest for the meaning of the writer, and might find it
without much difficulty. See the Excursus on Rey. 13:18, in Vol. IL,
for further explanations.

Those who fully believe that when God speaks to men, he does it in
conformity with modes of thinking and speaking which belong to the
age and country in which they live, will find, in such a mode of desig-
nating names as the Sibylline Oracles present, evidences of the proba-
bility that John might have employed a similar method of speaking, and
have done so without giving any offence to the taste of his contempora-

* When I suggest, that none of the Sibylline Oracles appear to be grounded on
the book of Revelation, [ speak only what the reading of them everywhere has
suggested to me, so far as the style and manner of the Apocalypse are concerned.
That the same doctrines, in many respects, are taught in both, is fully conceded ;
for some of the Sibyllists have drawn largely from the store of Christian doctrine.
But they do not present it in Apocalyptic colours. At least, I can see no attempt
at close imitation. There can be no doubt that the Apocalypse was extant, when
the above numerical descriptions were written ; and especially the two copied
from Book I,, which is of later stamp. But still, there is no apparent attempt at -
imitation. It appears to be rather the spirit of the times, than imitation of Rey. 13:
18, which prompted the efforts of the authors.

§ 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES. 105

ties. Above all may this be conceded to him, when the necessity for
speaking in a guarded manner was much more urgent on him, than it
was in any of the cases where such a method of designation is adopted
in the Sibylline Oracles.

The reader may now perceive, by an example of such a nature as is
produced above, how easy it is to suppose, that the Sibylline Oracles
may be profitable reading for an interpreter of the Apocalypse.*

The facts stated in the note below, serve to show how widely spread
were the original Sibylline Oracles, either real or pretended; and also
how much credit was given to them at Rome, in preference to all other
oracular compositions. Viewed in this light we can account for it, that
the Jews of Egypt began early to imitate the Sibylline Oracles, in order
that they might gain a listening ear among the heathen to the mono-
theistic doctrines inculcated by their compositions. Tothe heathen, who
allowed the importance of Sibylline testimony, an appeal of this nature,
it was thought, would prove to be an argumentum ad hominem. With
what success this pious fraud was attended, we do not for certainty
know. It would seem at least to have made considerable impression ;
otherwise it would hardly have been resorted to so often as it was.

* T subjoin in a note, a few historical notices, which may serve to cast some
light on the rise of such a book as the Sibylline Oracles. Long before the Chris- |
tian era, Oracles of the Sibyls were in circulation among the heathen. ‘They ap-
pear to have had altogether the most credit among the Romans. The common
account of the Roman historians is, that a Sibyl of Cumae came to Tarquin the
second, and sold him three books of oracles, after destroying siz which he had 'be-
fore twice refused to purchase ; that he paid a large price for them, and commit-
ted the custody of them to.two priests of the patrician order, [duumviri sacrorum] ;
that they were deposited in the Capitol at Rome, and consulted only on public
occasions, and then with great solemnity ; that in the civil war between Marius
and Sylla they were burnt, together with the Capitol, (about 82 B. C.) ; and that
after, this, the Senate by a decree, caused search to be made throughout Italy and
Greece for Sibylline writings, great numbers of which were procured. It seems
highly probable, that many were forged, in these circumstances, in order to obtain
money for them from the Roman Senate. Cicero (de Divinat. II. 54) openly at-
‘tacks the credit of them; and Augustus, (B. C. 21), when he came to the office
of the supreme Pontificate, after the death of the Consul, Lepidus, gave orders
for the collection of all Libri Fatidici throughout the empire ; in consequence of
which more than 2000 of them were collected. These he burned; and also many
of those deposited in the Capitol, which he judged to be worthless, (Sueton. Au-
gustus, cap. 31). ‘Tiberius also burned many more. The Roman (Christian) em-
perors forbade them to be taken from the temple of Apollo Capitolinus. There
they were consulted, however, by the emperor Julian (A. D. 363), and in 399
they were burned by Stilico, agreeably to an order of the emperor Honorius.

Varro reckons no less than ten Sibyls, at his time; (he was cotemporary with
Julius Caesar, and dedicated his Libri Divinarum Rerum to him). The number has
been much disputed ; Plato speaks of but one ; Solinus and Pliny of three ; Aelian
of four ; the account of Varro has been generally admitted in modern times.

VOL. I. 14

106 § 6. SIBYLLINE ORACLES.

From Jews before the Christian era, and Jewish Christians after the
commencement of it, seems to have proceeded a large portion of the
whole mass of Sibylline Oracles. The contents of them show, that none
of them, as they now are, could have been the pure compositions of hea-
then writers ; unquestionably none of them belonged to the collection of
Sibylline writings at Rome; unless, possibly, a few paragraphs or lines,
here and there, may have been inserted from copies of those Oracles
which were extant before the expurgation by Augustus.

No wonder, now, that in an.age when pious frauds were so common,
and when Sibylline and other Oracles so abounded as they did in the
time of Augustus, that here and there a proselytist, whose imagination
was much more prominent than his judgment or integrity, should have
resorted to such means of accomplishing his end. That cunni this
case, however, as in most others, defeated its own purposes, is plain

‘enough from the manner in which Celsus treats the compositions before
us. The whole fraud was evident enough to his sagacity ; and he ridi-
cules it and shows his contempt for it, in a manner that proves how ill-
adapted pious frauds are, in the end, to promote the cause of truth and
holiness.—I am aware, that some, e. g. Thorlacius, and several indivi-
duals before him, have defended the intentions of those who wrote the
Sibylline Oracles, and have merely placed them to the account of honest
and well-intended fictions. The study of them has satisfied me, that the
writers intended they should be taken as the actual productions of hea-
then Fatidicae, in order that heathen readers might be silenced when
Christian arguments were urged upon them, by an appeal to their own
admitted authorities.

Be this however as it may, it alters not the value of the books to us,
when searching for means of illustrating the productions of the first cen-
tury. The Sibylline Oracles, specially those which were composed by
Christians, exhibit the modes of thinking and speaking common at that
period, in regard to many highly important subjects. No intelligent
man can read them, who has an acquaintance with the criticism and exe-
gesis of the New Testament books, without feeling that he is sensibly a
gainer by the labour bestowed upon them. But how any one can now
read them, and come to the conclusion that they were actual revelations
of the Godhead to the heathen, which have merely been interpolated by
Christians, Iam not able to see. Yet Bishop Horseley did so; and in
his posthumous Works is a defence of this position. Seldom have so
much talent and learning as this prelate possessed, been united with so
little critical taste, skill, and sound judgment. His predominant instinct
seems to have been a love of paradoxes. Why should the Sibylline
Oracles be viewed in a different light from that in which we place the
great mass of apocryphal books, which haye come down from the early

§ 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCHARUM. 107

ages? Some of these are superior, in point of taste and importance of
matter, to the Sibylline Oracles.

J am aware of what Thorlacius and others have said in praise of these
compositions. That now and then a: few verses occur, or a paragraph,
which are well executed, and contain good doctrine, even noble senti-
ments, is certainly true. But the great mass of them is such dry, for-
mal, tumid, inanimate, and ‘pedestrian verse, that I cannot but subscribe
to the judgment of Bleek, who thinks the book would seldom indeed
be looked at, were it not that there is so much material in it for critics.

[The editions of these Oracles are, (1) Of Betuleius, 1545, 8vo. (2) The same
with Castellio’s Lat. version, 1546. (3) Opsopaeus, 1589, 1599, and 1607, 8vo.
(4) Gallaeus, 1689, 4to. At the close of the last named edition, is a collection
(from. opaeus) of the most notable of the heathen Oracles, which have been
preserved in different authors of ancient times. The reading of these will satisfy
any one, how different is the tenor of such compositions from that of the Sibylline
Oracles which have just been examined. It is utterly vain to think of maintain-
ino their genumeness.—The best account of these Oracles, is that by Bleek in
Schleiermacher, ete., Zeitschrift, St. I. II. Thorlacius has published a Critique
on them, in his Libri Sibyllistarum 1815, 8vo.; which, however, Bleek has near-
ly demolished.

If the reader wishes to pursue his investigations to a wider extent, he will find
ample discussions by Casaubon, Scaliger, Capell, Manesius, Hornbeck, J. C. Vos-
sius, Cotelerius, Marckius, Schmidt, Crasset, Nehring, Whiston, Beveridge, J.
Vossius, Grotius, Simon, Du Pin, Reiske, Tentzel, Daubuz, Ekhard, Gallaeus,
Heumann, Reinesius, Huet, Cave, Mosheim, Miinscher, Corrodi (a vivid picture),
and Fabricius. To these may be added Schoel, in his Geschichte Griech. Lit., I.
p. 33 seq.; also Thorlacius’ Conspectus Doctr. Christ, in Lib. Sib., in Miscellanea
Hafniensia, by Minter, 1818, Tom. [. pp. 113—180. The reader will find exact and
ample references to the respective treatises of all these authors, in Bleek (ubi
supra), p. 130 seq. Never has the work of impartial criticism in respect to these
Oracles been-thoroughly, done, before the effort of Bleek; and even he, wearied
of his work before it was finished, has not accomplished all that might be done.]

(e) Testamentum XII. Patriarcharum.

Dr. Nitzsch, in his De Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum, 1810, 4to.,
has shown, according to general concession and in a manner that will
not probably be controverted, that the work so entitled is a production of
the latter part of the first century, or of the beginning of the second.
I can scarcely hesitate, after an attentive study of the contents of the
Testaments, in expressing my belief that it was composed shortly after
the Apocalypse had obtained circulation. The references to the Apoca-
lypse are, in a few places, quite plain; e. g. Testament Levi, 18, daoets
roig aylow payeiy &u cov Evdov cig Coys, comp. Rev. 2:7; Testament
Joseph 19 and Testament Naphtali 5, comp. Rev. 12: 1—6, (a woman
clothed with the sun, etc.). The references to the matter of the New
Testament history are somewhat numerous, and too plain to be mistaken.

?
108 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCHARUM.

The plan of this work seems to have been conceived, from the exam-
ples of counsel given on a death-bed by Jacob, Joseph, ete., as well as
from the farewell addresses of Moses, Joshua, and others. The twelve
patriarchs are successively introduced, as imparting to their posterity
their last advice, in respect to their future demeanor. Together with
the moral precepts which they are made to utter, is intermingled various
matter that has relation to future times; and among the rest, a consid-
erable number of passages that have respect both to the Messiah and
the prosperity and triumph of his kingdom. Beyond all. reasonable
question, the author was a Christian Jew.

The matter and manner of such a work, composed so early as the first
century, must be of interest to an interpreter of the sacred books, which
were composed at the same period, and by Jewish Christians. Spe-
cially do the Messianic passages, and those which respect the church,
deserve an attentive perusal and consideration. I shall be as brief in
my account of the matter of this production, as the nature. of the case
will permit.

1. Tae Testament or Rruzrn. It is made up mainly of confession of sin
in the matter of Bilhah (Gen. 35: 22), and of Joseph (Gen. 37: 21 seq.); then
follow earnest exhortations to his descendants to avoid uncleanness. He warns
them, at the close, ‘‘ to hearken to the sons of Levi [the priests], until the com-
pletion of the time of the high priest, the Christ, whom the Lord: has promised.
The Lord will bless Levi and Judah; in him [i. e. in Judah, as 1 understand it],
the Lord hath chosen a Baocdsds aidiywy who shall reign over all people. Inc.
2, 3, is a very curious piece of anthropology: ‘ The Lord created man with seven
spirits, constituents of his nature ; to these Beliar [Belial] has added seven spirits
of error. In each case is superadded an eighth spirit, cd wvEtue Tov UavOv, Which
seems designed to modify the other spirits. Will this help to cast any light on
the beast who is the eighth king, mentioned in that dark passage of Rey. 17: 11?

JJ. Stwron. This is a sermon on envy, and the murderous consequences of it,
as exhibited by himself in the matter of Joseph. Toward the close the author
proceeds, in the manner of the Sibylline Oracles, to denounce Canaan, Amalek,
the Cappadocians, the Xerroior, i.e. the Romans, and Ham [Egypt]. After their
destruction, “ the great God of Israel will make his appearance as a man, and
save the race of men. All the spirits of error shall be trodden down, and men
shall reign over evil spirits.. Then shall I [Simeon] arise in’ gladness, ete. ...
The Lord, will raise up from Levi [one] as a high priest, and from Judah one as
a king, both God and man, [John the Baptist and Jesus Christ ?] So will he save
all men.”

Ill. Levi. This is the longest section of the whole, and it appears pretty plain-
ly, from the manner and matter of its contents, that the author belonged fo this
tribe, and was zealous for its rights. In a dream he is rapt into heaven and then
passes through seven heavens, resembling in some respects those mentioned in
the Ascension of Isaiah. There he is told, that “through him and Judah the
Lord will appear among men, saving among them every race of men.” An ac-
count is given to him of each heaven. In the fifth are the interceding angels. . ..
‘¢ When the rocks are rent, the sun extinguished, the waters dried up, fire shrink-
ing away and every creature troubled, when even the invisible spirits are melted,

§ 6. TESTAMENTUM XU, PATRIARCHARUM. 109

and Hades itself despoiled, by the suffering of the Most High, men, still remaining
unbelievers, shall be punished ;” c. 4. That is, because they do not believe in
the Saviour, they are punished. “ Levi is to be made a minister of God, until
the Lord shall visit all nations with the tender mercies of his Son forever.” Levi
is then told, that his posterity will aid in erucifying the son of God, and he is di-
rected to warn them ; c. 4.

‘The gates of the highest heaven are now opened to Levi, and he sees the Most
High upon his throne of glory, who says: “Levi, I have given the blessings of
the priesthood, until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel ;” [God made
manifest in the flesh.] He is then. dismissed and commissioned to destroy She-
chem [Gen. xxxiv.], an account of which transaction he gives. After this he
sees [in-a dream] seyen men who severally bestow on him the different parts of a
priest’s and a prophet’s costume, and then consecrate him to his office, After a
dark passage about the various classes of Levites, the seven [angels] tell him,
that “a king will arise from Judah, who will institute a new priesthood, pattern-
ed so as to have respect to all nations.”” In the meantime the priesthood and its
privileges are to be his. He is then instructed in its duties, by his grandfather
Isaac. He now warns his descendants, that he is innocent as to their future sin,
“which they will commit in the end of the world (é7i ovytelelg tov aidywr), doing
wickedly toward the Saviour of the world, and deceiving Israel.’’ Jerusalem
willbe destroyed, and the Jews dispersed among all the nations; as the book of
Enoch the just predicts. The priests, at a future period, will hecome exceedingly
corrupt, and practice every kind of iniquity: The Jews shall be dispersed for
seventy weeks, as the book of Enoch predicts. ‘¢ The man who renovates the
law’’ will be slain by the wicked priests, who will-be ignorant of his resurrection,
and know not that by their malignity they have brought innocent blood upon their
own heads. Because of this, their place shall be made desolate. The priesthood
is then divided into seven Jubilees, which are variously characterized ; after these
“the Lord will raise up a priest, to whom all his word will be revealed ; who will
judge righteously ; his star shall arise, like that of a king; he shall wax great in
the world until his ascension; he shall shine so as to scatter all darkness ; peace
shall be universal; the heavens shall rejoice, the earth be glad ; the knowledge
of the Lord shall be poured out upon the earth, as the waters of the seas; the
glorious angels of the presence of the Lord shall exult ; the heavens shall open,
and Holiness [i. e. the Holy Spirit] come down upon him, with the voice of the
Father. The glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, and the spirit of
understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him. By water shall he bestow
the excellence of the Lord upon his’sons in truth forever ...all sin shall cease
during his priesthood ; the wicked shall rest from evil, and the just shall rest in
him. He shall open the gates of paradise, and place there the sword that flamed
against Adam, and give his saints to eat of the tree of life, and the spirit of sanc-
tification shall be in'them. Beliar shall be bound by him, and to his own children
power will be given to tread evil spirits under their feet.”

Such is the picture of the Messianic day. It is impossible not to ac-
knowledge here a Christian hand. We recognize also allusions to facts
recorded in the New Testament. With a decided Christian belief, how-
ever, the author of this work cherished also a decidedly Judaizing spirit,
and doubtless was one of those, who believed that the Mosaic rites were
still to be continued, even under the Messianic dipsensation.

110 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCHARUM.

IV. Jupan. Much of this section is occupied with recounting his deeds of
valour and feats of animal strength in his early youth; some of them indeed silly
enough, and others bordering quite too much on the wonderful, E. g. he took a
wild buffalo by the horns and swung him around his head; he threw a stone
weighing sixty pounds at a giant king, and destroyed him, ete. Then family
matters and his incest with Thamar are related, which he attributes to having
drunk too much wine. “ Wine turns away the mind from truth, whets the ap-
petite of lust, and leads the eyes astray. The spirit of fornication employs wine
as its servant for pleasurable gratification ; and these two things take away all
manly power ;” [this, at least, is sober preaching]. He warns his children against
wine which leads men “ to behave scandalously, to transgress without shame,
and even to glory in dishonourable things as though they were praiseworthy. .. -
There are four evil spirits in it, concupiscence, inflamed passions, luxury, and
base gain.” He has read in the book of Enoch that his posterity will do all man-
ner of evil. To him is given pre-eminence in earthly things; to Levi, in heay-
enly ones. A king of his race is coming, who will restore all things, and reign
forever. - Then follows a Messianic passage of the same tenor with that cited un-
der Testament Levi. At the close he says: ‘“¢ Those who die in sorrow shall rise
in joy; those who die in poverty 0rd xvgcoy, shall be made rich; those who die in
want, shall be filled; those in. weakness, shall be made strong ; yea, those who
die Ove xvgcoy shall awake from sleep in life. . .. All people shall glorify the Lord
forever.’ Is not this a plain reference to the persecution and martyrdom of
Christians in the primitive age? It casts light on similar exhortations and prom-
ises in the Apocalypse.

V. Issacnar. This begins with a revolting account of Leah, Rachel, and Ja--
cob’s management of conjugal intercourse. Issachar was always industrious, tem-
perate, chaste, and successful in business. He is aware of the future defection
and vices of his posterity. He warns against them. He has lived in the prac-
tice of all the moral virtues, and he commends them to his children.

Vi. Zzsuton. A homily on the laudable quality of sympathy for the distress-
ed. He commiserated Joseph, and helped to save his life. Gives a protracted
account of the sale of Joseph, and of transactions connected with it. Israel will _
be divided into two kingdoms. “ After these things, the Light of righteousness,
the Lord himself, will arise, with healing and mercy in his wings. He will re-
deem all the captives of Beliar, and tread down every spirit of error, and turn all
nations to the emulation of him; and ye shall see God in the form of man, [Dsds
év caput porvnoudsis] ... But they will still transgress, and will be rejected until
the time of consummation.” He [Issachar] will rise again ; but the wicked will
be subjected to eternal fire, and God will destroy them forever.

Vil. Dan. Homily on falsehood and anger. He has read in the book of
Enoch, that “ Satan will be their prince ; that he will lead the sons of Levi and
Judah astray ; ... but the salvation of the Lord [the Saviour] shall come from
the tribe of Levi and Judah; he shall contend against Beliar and subdue him,
and turn the hearts of the disobedient to the Lord, and give eternal peace to all
who call upon him. ... Beware of Satan and his angels; draw near to God, and
to the angel who intercedes for you.”

VIfl. Narpurarr. Exhortation to beneficence. He has read in the book of
Enoch, that his posterity will commit the sins of Sodom; that they shall go into
exile; then return, sin again, and again be thrust into exile, until “the man who
works righteousness shall come, and show mercy to all afar off and near.”’ Two
dreams: Sun and moon he sees descending, and Levi and Judah take hold of

§.6.. TESTAMENTUM XI. PATRIARCHARUM, 111

them and are carried aloft, and become all-splendid. Again; standing by the
sea with his father and brethren, he sees a ship approach, under full sail, without
any sailors. They enter the ship; a great storm arises, and they effect their es-
cape in a way almost miraculous. These dreams, Jacob tells him, are to be full-
filled. “Through Judah salvation to Israel will come. Through his sceptre
God will appear, dwelling among men on earth, and will save the race of Israel,
and gather the just from all nations.”’

IX. Gap. Homily on hatred; exemplified by his demeanour toward Joseph.
“From Levi and Judah shall arise the Saviour of Israel.” His posterity, he fore-
sees, will become very corrupt.

X. Asuzr. There are two spirits of evil and good. These lead the soul in op-
posite directions. Asher knows that ‘his posterity will sin, and be scattered
among all the nations of the earth, “‘ until the Most High shall visit the earth, and,
coming asa man, eating and drinking with men, in quiet he shall crush the head
of the dragon. By water [baptism] shall he save Israel and all nations.”

XI. Josuen. Chap. 1. gives an account of his sufferings and dangers, and also
of his relief and deliverances ; the manner is seemingly copied from the last part
of Matt. xxv. The author then details all the imaginary particulars of Joseph’s
temptation by the wife of Potiphar ; and in the sequel goes back to his history
from the time when his brethren sold him, down to the time when he became a
servant of Potiphar. He then relates his own beneficence to his brethren, and
commends his example to his children. — A dream he had, in which he saw
twelve deer, nine of them were scattered [the tribes of Israel, exempting Levi] ;
afterwards the other three. He saw, that “from Judah was produced a virgin,
having a robe of fine linen; and from her came a spotless Lamb; and on his left
hand was the similitude of a lion, and all the beasts rushed with violence against
him [the Lamb], and the Lamb overcame them, and trode them down. Then an-
gels, and men, and all the earth, rejoiced over him... Honour Judah and Levi,
since from them shall spring the Lamb of God, saving by grace all the nations
and [srael. His kingdom is an eternal kingdom, which shall not pass away.”

XIf. Benzamin. He exhorts his posterity to imitate the beneficence of Joseph.
If any one loves God and his neighbor, then Beliar, the spirit of the air, cannot
harm him. Jacob embraced Joseph and said: “ In respect to thee shall be fulfilled
the prophecy of heaven concerning the Lamb of God and Saviour of the world,
for he although spotless shall be delivered up for transgressors, and himself al-
though sinless shall die for sinners, by the blood of the covenant for the salvation
of Israel and of the Gentiles, and he shall destroy Beliar and his servants.’’ Ex-
hortation to moral virtues, specially to benevolence. From the book of Enoch he
knows that the sin of Sodom will be committed by his posterity. But‘ the Lord
himself will take the kingdom, and the twelve tribes shall be gathered together,
and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send his salvation, by the visita-
tion of the Only-begotten. He’shall enter into the first temple, and there the
Lord shall be despised, and shall be lifted up on wood [on the cross]; and the
yeil of the temple shall be rent, and the spirit shall descend upon the nations, like
fire that is poured out, Coming up from Hades, he shall ascend from earth to
heaven... We shall rise from the dead, and each worship on his sceptre the
king of the heavens, who appeared on earth in the form of humble man; for as
many as believed on him while on earth, shall rejoice with him when all shall be
raised np, some to glory, and some to dishonour. And the Lord shall first of all
judge Israel, for their iniquity toward him, because they did not believe on God
the Redeemer who came in the flesh.” The section closes, as usual, with moral
admonition.

112 § 6. TESTAMENTUM XII. PATRIARCHARUM.

On a review of the contents of this book, one is surprised that it could
ever have been doubted, as it has been, whether a Christian was the
author. The uniformity of the Messianic predictions, near the close of
each Testament; the circumstantiality of them, so evidently built on
evangelical history ; the undissembled reprobation of the wickedness of
the Jews, and the declaration of their punishment ; all combine to prove,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that the work came from a Christian hand.
Yet there are many passages which savour plainly of a Jewish feeling,
which was too strong to be repressed. But if we consider how strong
this feeling generally was in the breasts of Judaizing Christians, we can
have no difficulty in accounting for all the paragraphs of this nature
which the piece before us exhibits. Nothing is said here of the aboli-.
tion of the Mosaic rites. The author was no zealous disciple of Paul.
And the manner in which he so often speaks of the Saviour as coming
from Judah and from Levi, evidently shows that the importance of Levi
was great in the writer’s view. It is somewhat difficult, perhaps, to
give any satisfactory account of this peculiarity in the twelve Testa-
ments. Whether the writer means, that Christ shall take the priest-
hood which was Levi’s, and continue it in a modified shape (as is plain-
ly intimated in Testament Judah); or whether (as is more probable)
he means to include John the Baptist, descended from a Levitical priest, -
along with the Messiah ; it is somewhat difficult to determine. At all
events, the writer plainly shows himself to be of the tribe of Levi, and
that probably he had once been an officiating priest.

There is very little in the piece which resembles the costume of the
Apocalypse. In Testament Levi is an account of his rapture into hea-
ven; in Testament Naphtali is an account of two dreams, one respect-
ing the descent of the sun and moon, and the other of a shipwreck ; in
Testament Joseph is a dream respecting the yirgin and the Lamb of
God; all of which resemble, in their costwme, some parts of the Old
Testament; but there is no angel-interpreter, as in the Apocalypse ;
nor any continued series of symbols or of imagery. All is simple, pro-
saic declaration, in which the writer scarcely strives to avoid a tiresome
repetition.

The moral tone of the whole piece is high. One cannot but feel, that
the writer was a man of ardent feelings in regard to this subject ; and
there is everywhere an air of great sincerity as well as ardour. Yet the
execution of the work developes but moderate talent; and some of it,
e. g.in Testament Issachar and Joseph, is reyolting to feelings of deli-
cacy. One can never well know what estimate to put on the beauties
of composition in the Apocalypse, until he has read other writings con- ,
temporary with it, and seen how others succeeded who ‘attempted com-
positions on the subject of Christ’s appearance and kingdom.

_

§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 113

No Millennium, in its appropriate sense, appears in the production
before us. The resurrection is repeatedly referred to ; but not in a way
that indicates with certainty a belief in a resurrection like that which
John calls the first, and which precedes the Millennium. Except with
regard to the moral virtues, there is a lack of definiteness and explicit-
ness concerning doctrines appropriately Christian. The writer was evi-
dently a novice in Christianity. But the incarnation of the Most High
—God—Lord—is mentioned so often as to show that the writer’s views
on this subject were somewhat definite and developed. He is no advo-
cate of a Se0g dSevzegog as having become incarnate. He is a full be-
liever, too, in the salvation of the Gentiles.

Let me add, that the Greek of this piece bears no small resemblance
to that of the New Testament, and may be read with much profit by one
who is seeking for means of explaining the Hebrew-Greek of the sacred
books. The style Hebraizes throughout; and the grammatical anoma-
lies of it are nearly on a par with those in the Apocalypse, excepting
such as the poetic costume of the latter work occasioned. An attentive
and intelligent reader must needs be a gainer, by the study of such a
work as the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs.

The Latin translation in Fabricius is poor indeed ; and any one who
reads it must often go to the Greek of the original, in order to make
sense of it. It is labour worse than lost to print such translations.

[The reader will find the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs in Fabricii Codex
Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. I. p.496 seq. The recent Critique by Nitzsch, named
on p. 107 above, is the most important. I regret that I was not able to obtain it

in due time for consultation. A book so much neglected as these Testaments,
and yet so full of interesting matter to the critical student, needs such an editor

as Nitzsch.]

(f) The Shepherd of Hermas.

T can scarcely doubt, that the reading of the Apocalypse suggested to
the writer of this book the form of his work. It consists of three parts
or books; the first contains four Visions ; the second twelve Mandates ;
the third ten Similitudes. The visions and the similitudes contain some
things which respect the church, and may be compared in some respects
with the matter of the Apocalypse.- Yet there is, on the whole, very
little that is appropriately apocalyptic in the work before us.

The Visions make the nearest approach to the Apocalypse. In the first, Her-
mas represents himself as becoming enamoured with a young woman at Rome,
who had formerly been a servant in his father’s house. While his mind was oc-
cupied with this subject he falls asleep, and the Spirit takes him through rough
and pathless ways, until he comes to a great plain. There, while praying, heaven

opens, and he sees the object. of his affection advancing toward him, and hears
her accuse him of sinful desires. These he disclaims, and maintains that he cher-

VOL. I. 15

114 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.

ished only an honourable affection. She informs him that concupiscence in any
form or degree is a great sin, directs him to pray for forgiveness, and vanishes.

In grief and sadness he continues his prayer and meditation, 'and soon an aged
woman [the symbol of the church] appears, adorned with splendid vestments and
having a book in her hand. She reproves him for concupiscence ; but more es-
pecially for not governing and restraining his household. She then reads to him
from the book in her hand; first, terrific matter ; then the following declarations
respecting the church: “ Behold! the almighty God, who by his invisible power
and great intelligence has made the world, and by his counsel worthy of honour
has clothed the creation with beauty, and formed the heavens by his all-powerful
mandate, and founded the earth upon the waters, who has also established his ho-
ly church by his great power, and hath blessed it, behold, he will remove the hea-
yens and the mountains, the hills and the seas, that all things may be filled with
his elect ; so that he will fulfil the promise which he has made with much honour
and joy, should they observe the things which God has ordained, which they have
received with much faith.”

Four young men now appear and carry away the seat on which the aged wo-
man sat, to the east. She informs Hermas, that the terrible things which she
first read, are intended’ for apostates and heathen. Two men now appear, and
bear her away toward the seat that was carried to the east. z

Visron IT. A year after this, the Spirit bore away Hermas to the same place,
which was the scene of his former vision. Here he again sees the aged woman,
walking and reading her book. She gives it to him to be copied. As soon as
this work was finished, the book vanished. After fifteen days fasting and prayer,
the contents of the book are disclosed to him, They respect the sins of his wife
and children ; to whom he is to read the book in the way of reproof, lest they put
off repentance until it be too late. Hermas is bid to warn the church, that they
may persevere in obedience ; and specially that “‘ they may not yield to the great
pressure which is on them [persecution], nor deny him who is their life.” Then
follow exhortations to kindness, self-denial, and perseverance.

After this a youth appears to him in his sleep, and asks him, who that aged
woman was? He answers: A Sibyl. The youth replies, that she is the church,
and that she appears old, because the church was constituted before the begin-
ning of the world.

The old woman again appears, and directs him to write two books; one of them
he must send to Clement [Clemens Rom. bishop of Rome], the other to Grapte
[a supposed deaconess at Rome]. Clement must publish them abroad among the
churches ; Grapte must read them among the widows and orphans.

Vision Lil. After repeated fastings, the aged woman again appears and directs
him to go into a field. On repairing thither he sees a seat, but no person near it.
After praying, the woman again appears, with six young men. She directs them
to go and build; while she seats Hermas on the left part of the settee, telling him
that the right hand part of it is reserved as the place of honour for martyrs, (illo-
rum est qui jam meruerunt Deum, et passi sunt causa nominis ejus), .. . “ who
have endured wild beasts, scourgings, imprisonment, the cross, for his name’s
sake.” She then directs his attention to a great tower, that was being built over
the water with splendid squared stones. The six youth were engaged in building
it, and were assisted by many thousands of others. Some of the stones were
taken from the abyss, and were all exactly fitted; some from the land, which
were partly used and partly rejected. Many stones lay around the tower which
were not employed, some of them being rough, some full of seams, some round or

§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 115

ill fitted for building. Some were thrown away at a great distance, and rolled
mto a desert place ; others rolled into the fire ; others came near to the water,
but could not enter it.—In the sequel the woman tells him, that the tower is built
on the water, because salvation is by water. The youths are angels preeminent ;
the other assistants, angels of inferior order, The stones well squared and shin-
ing are apostles, bishops, teachers, and ministers, who have taught and ministered
well to the elect of God, and who have fallen asleep. As to the stones brought
from the land unhewed, only a part of them are accepted. Those employed in
the building are the new converts. Those that lie near the building unemployed,
are such as have sinned and are willing to do penance, [the Greek here, no doubt,
was wstavosy]; those thrown ata distance are reprobates. Such as are not put
into the building, never can be received when it is once completed.

In like manner, all the different kinds of stones which are rejected, are made
symbolical of different classes of sinners, which are described at length. Hermas
inquires, whether penitence will avail anything, for such as have been rejected ;
the answer is that it will, in case it takes place while they are undergoing their
chastisement, and before the days of punishment are completed. [The germ of
purgatory. ]

Hermas then sees seven women around the tower. These, he is told, are the
seven Christian graces, faith, abstinence, simplicity, innocence, modesty, disci-
pline, charity. He then desires to know when the consummation of the building
will take place, and is told: “¢ Cito consummabitur.” This Hermas is enjoined
to publish. Then follows an exhortation to alms-giving and to mutual love and
a pacific spirit.

The six young men who superintended the building of the tower, now come
and take away the aged woman to the tower, while four others transport her seat
thither. As she was going, Hermas inquires why she had assumed three differ-
ent forms in her appearances to him ; first as an old and infirm woman through-
out ; secondly, with somewhat of a juvenile face; thirdly as younger and with
a cheerful and smiling aspect. She explains this by telling him that when she
first appeared to him, all his graces were in a feeble and as it were superannuated
condition, which was symbolized by her appearance ; that when she next appeared,
with a younger visage, he was like to an aged person who renews his strength on
the hearing of good tidings, which Hermas had in like manner heard. Her third
appearance, which was still more youthful and vigorous, was a symbol of Hermas’
state who had become more cheerful and vigorous, after fasting so much and
having so many revelations imparted to him.

Thus ends this chapter of visions ; which betrays great poverty of in-
tellect and imagination, with feeble conceptions and very little taste for
congruity of representation. It appears to me, also, that here are some
indices of a later period than the commencement of the second century ;

but of this I shall speak in the sequel.

Vision 1V. Twenty days after his former vision, he goes into the solitary fields,
and there, after awhile, he sees first a great cloud of dust, and then, on nearer
\approach, a huge monster like a whale, vomiting forth fiery locusts. It was 100
feet in length, and its head was like an urn, and its mouth as if it might swallow
up the city. Armed with faith Hermas comes near, and the monster only throws
outits tongue at him. Its head was striped with black, red, golden, and white.
Passing the monster, a virgin soon meets him splendidly adorned. This was the

116 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.

church. She assures Hermas that he had escaped the great beast, by putting
his trust in God, who only is able to deliver. This beast [imitated from the Apoc-
alypse xiii. seq.] was the symbol of “ oppression yet to come.” If the church
will prepare for it, and put her trust in God, she shall also escape. The four
colours are symbolical ; the black is this dark world; the red means that the wick-
ed age must perish by blood and fire; the golden, that some will, like gold that is
purified, come out from the fire when their dross shall be purged away ; the
white represents the world to come, when all shall be pure and clean. These
things Hermas is enjoined to publish; and then the virgin disappeats with a loud
sound.

Boox II. This consists of Twelve Mandates, moral and paraenetic. The Angel
of Penitence appears to Hermas, in the habit of a traveller, and delivers these
mandates. They concern faith in God; the avoiding of slander and the doing of
alms ; the shunning of falsehood and penitence on account of dissimulation ; the
dismission of an adulteress; sadness of heart and patience; the two angels of
good and of evil; the fear of God, and boldness against demons; turning away
from evil and doing good; persevering and confident prayer; a gloomy mind
which offends the Spirit; the trial of spirits by observing their respective opera-
tions ; the desire of good and avoidance of evil, also the possibility of keeping
God’s commands, and exhortation not to fear the devil.

There is much of dry and empty repetition in many of them; also
a leaning toward superstition in respect to angels and demons, and
in regard to the matter of penitence. The moral tone is in itself pure
and high ; but the views of the writer are narrow, and his manner very
unattractive. There is nothing here, except the machinery which the
writer employs, which contains any resemblance to the Apocalypse in
general, and scarcely any even to the hortatory epistles which stand at
the commencement of the book.

Boox If. Simrirrupes. These exhibit the continued address of the angel
who delivered the Mandates. Simitirupx I. is a homily against avarice and lux-
ury, and an exhortation to charity. SimitrrupE If. Hermas walks into the fields,
and sees a vine covering an elm-tree and loaded with fruit. The angel appears,
and tells him that the elm symbolizes the rich man, who is poor in good works;
the vine represents the poor man, who attaches himself to the rich, prays for him,
and thus procures for him many good things which he would not otherwise obtain.
Thus the poor and the rich unitedly bring forth more fruit than either would
alone. Simizrrupe III. The angel shows him trees whose leaves had fallen off,
These, appearing like dead trees, resemble the just who mix with the world and
conform to them, and thus appear as if they were dead to spiritual things. Si-
mititupk& LV. The angel shows him trees, a part of which are green and flourish-
ing, and a part of them dry. The former symbolize the righteous im a future
world ; the latter, the wicked who will be burned in the fire.

Simrcitupe V. After fasting, Hermas retires to a mountain, and there the an-
gel again appears, and tells him that his external fasting is not a true and real
fast. That such a one consists in preserving the mind pure, and in cultivating
the spirit of obedience. The similitude employed in the sequel is that of a ser-
vant, commanded to keep a vine safely and hedge it about ; which he not only
did, but diligently cultivated it, by digging the earth around it, ete. When his
lord came, he not only rewarded him for doing what he had commanded, but also

§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 117

for his additional care and efforts. So it will be with those who keep fasts, i. e.
traly keep them. [The germ of merit in works supererogatory]. Afterwards the
angel says, that the farm on which the vine is planted, represents the world; the
son, the Holy Spirit; the faithful servant, the Saviour ; the vine, his people ; the
hedge about it, his messengers, etc.

Simitirupe VI. The angel takes Hermas again into the fields, and shows him
a shepherd superbly clad, and exulting in his sporting flocks; this is the genius
of pleasure, ete. He then shows another; of a stern and severe look and demean-
or; this is the angel of punishment. A part of the sheep, who are not irreclaim-
able, will be punished a year for each day of sin, and thus they will be reclaimed.
Simirirupe VIT. Hermas goes into the field sad and dejected because of his suf-
ferings and those of his house. The angel again appears and admonishes him to
be patient ; for he and his house have sinned. If he is patient, he will in the
end reap an ample reward, and also his house. He promises to procure some
remission of their sufferings from the angel of punishment.

Simitirupe VIII. \ This presents a curious symbol, which is carried out with a
minuteness of detail that becomes tedious, although it is not destitute of ingen-
uity. Hermas is shown a vast spreading willow under which all the elect of the
Lord are gathered. An angel cuts off small boughs or rods from it, and gives to
all who stand under it. The tree still remains undiminished in its magnitude.
After a time all the rods are demanded from each. Some of them were dry and
putrid as if worm-eaten ; others simply dry ; then half dry, half dry with incisions,
one half entirely dry, one third, two thirds, the mere end of the rod dry with
incisions, wholly dry; then follow the rods wholly green; some with additional
shoots and others with shoots loaded with fruit. This latter class, i. e. all who
have flourishing rods, are all admitted into the tower, and clothed in splendid
white vestments. As to all others, whose rods were partially or wholly dry, the
angel orders their rod to be planted in a moist place ; in order to see whether they
will sprout again. In the sequel, all present their rods to him; most of them
had acquired some virescence, but this was very different in degree. The re-
mainder of a long chapter is then occupied with describing the respective classes
of Christians to whom these rods belonged, and whose condition was symbolized
by the state of the rod. Some were dry and rotten, some dry, some half dry,
some simply virescent, some frondescent, some frutescent, etc. Hach oie is ad-
mitted to such a place in the tower, or on the walls around it, as the state of his
rod indicates that he ought to be: Those with rods wholly dry, or dry and rotten,

‘are excluded and sent away to punishment, there being no more place for repent-
ance.

The explanation of the angel is, that the willow tree means the law over all the
world ; those under its shade, believers; the angel who superintended the rods,
etc., is Michael, the guardian angel of God’s people ; the rods are the law which
he ‘has put into their hearts ; the presentation and examination of the rods, is the
final trial of men, etc. There isa little of the romantic about some parts of the
allegory, which make it a matter of more interest than is attached to most of this
writer’s similitudes. At the same time, the doctrine of agere penitentiam (do pe-
nance) is plainly to be found here in its initial state; and the great importance of
performing this duty during probation, is exhibited by the whole process of set-
ting out the rods in moist land and waiting for their vegetation.

Simmitups IX. Hermas is led to a high mountain of Arcadia, from which he
sees a great plain, surrounded by twelve mountains. These were, the first black,
the next smooth without vegetation, the third overrun with thorns and thistles,

118 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.

the fourth full of half-dried herbage, the fifth rough and with vegetation, the sixth
full of fissures with withering vegetation on their sides, the seventh covered with
flourishing vegetation, the eighth full of water-springs and brooks, the ninth dry
and full of serpents, the tenth full of lofty shade-trees, the eleventh full of fruit-
trees loaded with fruit, and the twelfth white and shining in a most splendid man-
ner. Hermas then sees a vast white rock in the plain, higher than any of the
mountains, with a newly carved gate-way. Twelve virgins stand as porters,
Six lofty men now appear, and call others to assist them, in building a tower over
this gate-way. The virgins help forward the work. Ten white stones are then
brought from the deep, and put into the tower; then other twenty-five stones,
then thirty-five, then forty more, all from the deep.. Next stones are brought
from the mountains around. Of these some remained of the same colour, and
some changed their colour; the former not being introduced through the gate by
the virgins, and not being homogeneous with the rest of the building, were re-
moved from the tower. The structure was reared in one day, but not completed.
The coming of the Lord of the tower is to be waited for, before it is completed.
He comes after a little time accompanied by all the builders, and examines all the
stones, and orders those which are unfit to be taken out. of the building. Others
dug from a quarry in the plain, are put in.their stead. Those which had been re-
jected were ordered to be fitted anew, so far as might be done, Many, on trial,
proved to be incapable of being fitted for the buildings. Twelve women, dressed
in black, beautiful in.appearance, without girdles, and with bare shoulders, are
ordered to carry away the rejected stones to the mountains. Hermas is left in
the keeping of the porter-virgins, during a short absence of the angel-interpreter.
Soon he returns, and the explanation commences.

The great white rock is the Son of God; the new gate, his incarnate condi-
tion; the builders are, the angels; none can enter the kingdom of God, except
through the new gate. The tower is the church; the twelve virgins, the porters,
are the graces which the Spirit of Christ bestows; the stones cast away are repro-
bates, and such as have greatly transgressed; but if these last will repent, they
may be again received. The virgins are faith, abstinence, resolution, patience, etc.
The women in loose attire are perfidy, intemperance, unbelief, pleasure, ete.
The first ten stones put into the tower are the first age of Christianity ; the twenty
are the second: the thirty-five are prophets and ministers of the Lord; the forty
the apostles and teachers of gospel-doctrines. The taking of the stones from the
water, denotes the efficacy of baptism as a preparation for the kingdom of heaven,
When the apostles were dead, they went and preached to those qui ante obierunt,
and gave to them this sign [baptism]. These come up from the water, vivi. [A
germ of Purgatory.]

Hermas then obtains an explanation of what. is symbolized by the different
character and appearance of the twelve mountains around the plain. These de-
signate different classes of Christians, of hypocrites, reprobates, etc., which the
author particularizes even to great and tedious length. The twelfth mountain
only deserves particular remark. It is all white and shining; a symbol of those
“who believe without dissimulation, like infants, who will be more especially
honoured, ... Omnes enim infantes honorati sunt apud Dominum, et primi ha-
bentur.”” [Such seems to have been the general feeling of the primitive age of
Christianity.]

There is very much of tedious and arid repetition in this ninth Similitude. The
imagination of the tower, as described in Vision III, seems to have haunted the
mind of the author with so much urgency, or at least filled it with so much de-

§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 119

light, that he could not forbear the echo of it again in this place, with some ya-
riations ; and he has prolonged the echo much beyond the original sound.
Simitirupe X. Exhortation agere poenitentiam. Hermas must exhort others
to do the same. The angel shepherd, i. e. the angel of penitence, will be sent to
dwell with him ; also the virgins, i.e. the Christian graces. If he perseveres and
keeps his house pure, then they will continue their abode with him. Kindness
and charity are to be exercised toward all. Hermas must do these things forth-

with, and diligently, lest the building of the tower should be completed and he
be excluded.

The intelligent reader will perceive at once, that there is very little
in the Shepherd of Hermas, which compares well with the Apocalypse,
excepting what may be named the machinery of the piece, i. e. the in-
tervention of angels, the frequent employment of symbols, and the warn-
ings and threatenings which have some resemblance in point of matter
to those in the epistles to the seven churches, Rev. ii. iii. But it is
highly profitable to read such a book as this of Hermas, were it for no
other purpose than to learn the immeasurable difference there is between
the Apocalypse and other productions of early ages, which are more or
less modelled after it. The barren imagination, the feeble conceptions,
the dry and aphoristic style, the repetitions so often iterated, the childish
conceits, the monkish ascetics, of the Shepherd of Hermas—all place it
immeasurably below the work of John, and show how completely the
factitious efforts of early times to imitate him, failed in all important re-
spects.. One needs but to survey the whole ground with his own eyes,
in order to be entirely convinced of the correctness of these remarks.

Undoubtedly some allowance is to be made for the Latin dress in
which the Shepherd is presented to us. The original was Greek, a few
passages of which have been preserved by quotation, and are presented
in the edition of Cotelerius I. p. 75 seq. The translation, like that of
Irenaeus, is in general a dead literality, (if I may be allowed the ex-
pression) ; and somewhat frequently it is obscure because the translator
does not seem to have fully understood the meaning of his original.
It seems to me also, that some of the version is tinctured with the reli-
gious views of the times when it was made. Thus pézavogw is render-
ed agere poenitentiam (to do penance), as we know from the examples
where the Greek text is preserved; e.g. p. 97, gay un weravonoet, Lat.
si non poenitentiam egerit; p. 101, wa 7 wetavowe avray xadupa yén-
tot, where the Latin is: Ut poenitentiam agant et poenitentia eorum
munda fieret; p. 109, dy 6& peraronomor xed avarnpoct, Lat. et cum
coeperint delictorum agere poenitentiam, tunc ascendunt in praecordia
eorum opera sua. Here the same spirit was operating, which has led
one part of the church in modern times to translate wezavosize by do
penance. Besides; one needs only to compare the Greek passages with
the Latin, in order to see that, notwithstanding its literality, it has often
indulged in diffuse paraphrase.

120 § 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS,

Independently however of any errors of translation, it lies upon the
face of the whole work, that it was written by an ascetic, who laid un-
due stress upon fasts and vigils, and had some superstitious views in re-
gard to other subjects. Thus (p. 70) sexual inclination seems to be re-
presented as being in itself a sin; the tower (p. 79) built on the water
signifies, that “vita nostra per aquam salva facta est, et fiet ;” apostles
and teachers “have died and preached to those who were dead,” plainly
said on p. 120; penitence may be attained to, after a first trial and re-
jection, i. e. may be obtained in purgatory, p. 80; offenders of a certain
class will be sent to another place, where they will repent, and then be
admitted into the tower [the heavenly church] after they have once
been excluded, p. 80, col. 2; omnis rogatio humilitate eget, jejuna ergo
et percipies a Domino quod postulas, i. e. the penance of fasting is pe-
culiarly grateful to God, p. 81. Celibacy, also, is earnestly recommend-
ed, p. 90; works of supererogation inculcated: Si autem praeter ea quae
mandavit Dominus, aliquid boni adjeceris, majorem dignitatem tibi con-
quires, et. honoratio apud Dominum eris quam eras futurus, p. 106.
Besides these strong marks of a later age, Hermas speaks of “apostles,
bishops, teachers, and ministers . .. who have taught, etc.” (p. 80) ; and
on p. 118 he characterizes one sort of offenders in the church, as having
“contentionem de principatu et dignitate.” These and other things of .
the like nature point, as it seems to me, very clearly to a later age than
the close of the first century, as the period when the Pastor of Hermas
was written.

Accordingly we find no notice of this work in Justin Martyr, who is
sufficiently prone to advert to works of this nature. But Irenaeus and
Tertullian and Clemens Alex. quote it, the latter oftentimes. Of these,
however, only Tertullian ascribes the authorship to Hermas. But Ori-
gen has often quoted it; and in one place (Explanat. in Rom. 16: 14),
he says: “ I think the Hermas there mentioned [viz. in Rom. 16: 14] is
the writer of the book called Pastor ; which writing appears to me to be
very useful, and as I suppose, divinely inspired.” One would hardly
deem it possible for Origen to entertain such an opinion respecting a
performance like that before us, when he is usually quite cautious in re-
gard to apocryphal books. As an offset for this criticism, however, we
have the opinion of the author of the anonymous fragment on the Canon
in Muratori, who declares that “ Hermas, in the city of Rome, very
lately wrote the Pastor, Pius his brother being bishop of the Romish
church.” If this be correct, then was the book written about A. D.
150. Earlier than this, the internal evidence does not fairly permit
us to believe that it was composed.

That such a book should have gained the credit it did in ancient times,
must be owing more to its conformity to the fashion of the day, than to

§ 6. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. 121

its merits. Its ascetics are rigid and pure; its symbolical character
commended it to Origen, who was much devoted to allegory, and to
whom the Canticles was the most precious part of all the Old Tes-
tament, for there he could sail, as Jerome says, “cum pleno velo.”
With the Canon, however, it was rarely ranked. Tertullian speaks of
it with ineffable contempt, after he became a Montanist: “ Scriptura
Pastoris, quae sola in moechos amat,” de Pud. c. 10. Even Origen says,
more than once: Si cui tamen libellus ille recipiendus videtur; Hom.
I. in Ps. 87. Soin Hom. 8 in Num, So again: Libello Pastoris, qui
a nonnullis contemni videtur, Philoc. c. 1; and thus elsewhere. The
reader will find all the quotations of Hermas by the earlier fathers, in
Cotelerius, Patt. Apostol. I. p. 68 seq. How this could be deemed re-
vera utilis liber, as Jerome calls it (Catal. Script. Ecc. v. Hermas), can
be accounted for, as it seems to me, only in the way that I have already
suggested above.

In the mean time its excellence, or want of excellence, is not the
main question with us at present. Our object is, to find by the reading
of this book, what kind of views and taste was common at the time in
which it was written. ‘The author, in Vision II. ad fin., plainly intends
to lead his readers to. suppose, that he lived in the time of Clement of
Rome, inasmuch as he mentions directions given to him by the angel,
to present Clement with a copy of the book which the aged woman had
bidden him to transcribe. I cannot but look on this as a designed effort
to conceal the true age of the author. Let any one come to the reading
of him, fresh from the perusal of works which really belong to the first
century, and he can entertain no doubts, at least it strikes me so, that
the work before us must be assigned to a later date. Bleek says that
he finds no evidence to satisfy his mind, that it is not among the earliest
productions. How can he have read it with scrutinizing attention? F,
Liicke, on the other hand, (Einleit. in die Apoc. p. 142 seq.), assigns it
to the middle of the second century ; in which I fully concur.

[The reader will find most of the literature which he needs respecting Her-
mas, in Cotelerius. His Judiciwm de S. Hermae Pastore (Vol. |. p. 73), however,
shows a strong leaning to traditional authority. He pronounces all the accusa-
tions brought against the work, to be founded frivolo aut nullo fundumento. So,
as a Romanist, he might think ; for purgatory, and penance, and celibacy, all find
their earliest supports in the Pine Besides the common judgment respecting
the work, contained in ec clesiastical histories, the reader will find a short cri-
tique in Litcke (Hinl. p. 141 seq); also in all the Bibliothecas of ancient ecclesi--
astical authors. The book needs a new editor, and a much more thorough sifting
than it has yet received. ]

OL. I. 16 e
Vv wie

.

192 § 6. APOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.

(g) The apocryphal Apocalypse of John.

An attempt to mend the work of John, even under his name and
with most evident plagiarism, could hardly have been expected. Yet in
an age when compositions of this nature abounded to an excessive de-
gree, such an attempt was made; and it bears the title of Azoxaduyis
zov ayiov amoczodov . . . Ladsvov.

No ancient writer has mentioned this production, excepting Theodo-
sius, the grammarian as he is called. Of this writer we know but little.
He is supposed by some to have been a native of Alexandria, and to
have belonged to the corps of Byzantine grammarians. Some of his trea-
tises on grammar have been lately published ; but his age, and country
even, remain undecided. In his Egwzjuacta megi tar moocmdiay he
says: “ Another apocalypse bears the name tov deoddyov [an appella-
tion of John the author of the Apocalypse]; but we do not say that it
belongs to him of the isle of Patmos. My yévoito! For this is most
true and real [adySeoraty éoriy|; but we speak of one which is pseu-
donymous and belongs to a different author.”* The contents of this
production will show that it belongs to a late age, and is deserving of
very little consideration.t They are as follows:

John, after the ascension of Christ, goes to mount Tabor. There he prays, and
requests that it may be revealed to him, when Christ will come again on earth,
and what changes will ensue in consequence of his coming.

After seven days of prayer, a bright cloud takes him away toward heaven. He
hears a voice saying: ‘‘ Hear, holy John, and understand.’ He then perceives
heaven opened, smells a most grateful perfume, and streams of light pour down
upon him. He then sees a book with seven seals, as thick as seven mountains,
and so long that no man could measure it. This is the book which concerns the
future. He desires to know its contents. These are disclosed: first there will
be an abundance of corn and wine ; then a scarcity. Then Antichrist will come,
in a fearful form. The heavens. will be as brass; there will be no dew, no ‘rain,
cloud, or wind. Three years will Antichrist. reign, and then Enoch and Elijah
will come to expose his deceit. But they will perish; and all men with them.
The angels will then be sent to blow the trumpet and wake the dead to life. All
distinction of sex, rank, ete., will then cease. The angels will next be sent over
all the earth, to get together all that is valuable, the holy images, and vessels of the

* The reader will find an account of Theodosius, and of his published works, in
Schoell’s Geschichte d. Griech. Lit, II. p. 173. It is somewhat singular, that
this obscure writer should be the only one that seems to have noticed the apocry-
phal book in question,

t 1 have not the Auctarium Cod. Apoc. of Birch at hand, which contains the

only printed copy of this apocryphal work, in Fase. I. p. 243—260; unless, in-

deed, Thilo has repabliiam in his Corpus of apocryphal productions. My ac-
count of the work, therefore, is taken from Litcke’s Einl. I. p. 146 seq.

§$ 6. APOOCRYPHAL APOCALYPSE OF JOHN. 123

churches, the precious crucifixes, and the holy books. The Lord will take his scep-
tre in his hand, and all angels will fall prostrate, all human beings be elevated to
heaven. Allthe evil spirits, and Antichrist whom they aid, will be swept off the
earth by clouds. The Lord will send the angels to burn up the earth and all that
is in it ; and thus all will be purified. The earth will then say : I am a young vir-
gin, and there is no sin in me. An angel will then appear and proclaim the coming
of the Lord. Heaven and earth will shake at the sound ; the heavens will open, and
the new Jerusalem with delightful odour come down, adorned as a bride for her
husband. Then Christ will descend in majesty and pomp, with myriads of angels
and archangels, who bear his throne, and sing the trisugion. The judgment will
follow. The seven seals of the great book will be opened. The opening of the
first will make the stars to fall ; of the second, will eclipse the sun; of the third,
will melt down the heavens; of the fourth, will make the moon to fall; of the
fifth, will rend the earth in pieces; of the sixth, will bring Hades to destruction ;
of the seventh, will dry up the sea. Then follows the judgment of the evil spirits
of Antichrist. They will be cast into outer darkness, into a gulf so deep, that a
heavy stone would not reach the bottom in falling three years. Unbelieving
Greeks and heathen are next judged, and cast into Hades, [the writer forgets that
the opening of the sixth seal had destroyed Hades] ; then the Jews, who cruci-
fied the Saviour, will be cast into Tartarus. Those who bear the name of Chris-
tians will be separated, true Christians will be placed on the right hand of the
judge, and will shine in glory ; hypocrites on the left hand, and be covered with
darkness. The faithful will then live in an earthly paradise, and angels with
them; and all evil and trouble and earthly vicissitudes will cease.

John is commanded to impart these things to faithful men, and not to cast his
pearls before swine. A cloud then brings him back to mount Tabor, and the
writer concludes with a doxology.

Is it not now one of the most extraordinary conceits that ever entered
the mind of man, that the genuine Apocalypse was to be bettered by such
a substitute as this? Not a few compositions, however, of ancient times
exist, that can well claim a near affinity to this in point of style and
spirit.

Two or three circumstances fully settle the question as to the late-
ness of the age in which this must have been written. One is, the
mention of holy images and precious crucifixes ; which are known to
have been common and counted sacred in churches, only since the fourth
century. The writing also mentions zarguéeyas as an order among
Christians ; but this designation did not come into use, until the fifth
century.

The writer appears to have confounded the Millennium of John with
the period which is to follow the general judgment; and to be so much
of a wuyrxdg in his conceptions, that an earthly paradise is the beaw ideal
of his heaven. No wonder that his production obtained but very little
notice at any period.

124 § 6. GENERAL REMARKS ON

(h) General Remarks on the preceding Apocryphal Compositions.

The reader must not mistake my design in the exhibition of these
relics of the early ages. Nothing can be further from my intention,
than to place them by the side of the Apocalypse of John, as possessing
similar value and authority. Indeed, I know of no more successful way
for any one to convince himself that the writer of the canonical Apoc-
alypse was entirely a different man from any of the authors of the fic-
titious Revelations—different not in his. individual person merely, but
in his views, feelings, special objects aimed at, and conscious mastery of
all the subjects which he undertook to exhibit—than to read the apoc-
ryphal books which I have examined. Others may account for this
difference as they judge best; but as to the actual difference in question,
I am ready to believe that no intelligent man, well acquainted with the
subject, will attempt to deny it. For myself Iam persuaded, that the
spirit which animated the feelings and enlightened the mind of John,
was distinct from, and far superior to, the spirit which controlled the
feelings and views of the apocryphal writers in question.

Ewald, as has already been intimated, makes the supposition (p. 9),
that John has largely drawn from the book of Enoch. I have already .
given the reasons why I cannot assent to this. All the apocryphal
works now before us, bear marks of a composition subsequent to, or in-

‘dependent of, the Apocalypse. And if I am asked, as it is natural I
should be, why then I have brought them to view and dwelt upon them
so long; my answer is not difficult. They exibit the taste and the
usus loquendi of the age in which they were written. The simple fact,
that there are so many of these compositions at and near the close of the
first century, of itself shows the demand in which they stood among
Christians, and in some respects even among Jews. Why should this
form of composition be chosen, and resorted to by so many, if the pop-
ular demand were not such as to secure it some good degree of favora-
ble reception ?

If now we make the supposition, that the Apocalypse of John led the
way in compositions of an apocalyptic nature during the first century,
and gave to them a popularity which called forth other works in a some-
what similar style ; then it would follow of course, that the Apocalypse
must very early have been popular to a high degree, even so as to con-
trol the taste of the Christian community. But if this be doubted, then
we must still concede, that the taste of the day, whatever were the
causes of it, demanded works of such a cast. Whether this taste had
gradually arisen from the favorite study of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zecha-
riah, or whatever might have called it forth, nothing can be plainer, than

APOCRYPHAL REVELATIONS. 125

that John wrote the Apocalypse in such a manner as was adapted to
meet the desires and wishes of the times in which he lived. He might
have communicated all the simple historical or didactic truth which he
has now taught, within the compass of a single chapter, by plain, pro-
saic, and direct propositions, without any allegory or continued sym-
bols. But if he had, it would neither have made so deep an impression
on the mind and memory of his readers, nor given them so much plea-
sure by its perusal. Why might he not prefer symbol, as well as the
writers of the 18th Psalm, of Is. xiv, and of ie parts of Ezekiel, of
Daniel, and of Zechariah ?

When the reader is well aware of this general ground, he will see
more plainly the object I had in view, in dwelling upon the apocryphal
works that are contemporary, or nearly so, with the Apocalypse. The
general taste and feeling, in respect to works of this nature, are thus
illustrated. Nor is this by any means even the principal good to be de-
rived from a knowledge of such works. The wsus loqguendi of the day,
in regard to sacred things and symbols, as well as the costume of pre-
dictions respecting the future, has more or less of light cast upon them
by almost every page of an apocryphal work. Bombastic, declamatory,
and even puerile, as many of the Sibylline Oracles are, yet inasmuch as
they are poetry, (which the Apocalypse also in its essence is), and some
of them precede and some synchronize with the Apocalypse, and others
follow it, they help much to show the spirit and feeling and taste of the
day, and cast light on many an idiom and mode of description which
John employs.

As an example in point, I may again refer to the description of the
* beast, at the close of chap. xiii, where his nwmber is said to be 666. ‘This
has been called Cabbalistic, mystical, puerile, fanciful, and what not, by
some ancient and many recent writers. Yet we may show, (as I have
done above, p. 102 seq.), that the contemporaries of John did not re-
gard this subject in such a light; yea, we may even venture to suggest,
that under the circumstances in which John wrote, some such method
of concealing partially the individual aim of the writer, was quite ex-
pedient.

There is another and most important influence, which the perusal of
such works as apocryphal revelations will almost insure. It is a fami-
iarity with style and imagery, such as pertain to. apocalyptic writings.
A man who has never read any work kindred to the Apocalypse, may
naturally feel that many things are very peculiar and strange in it. He
is led, insensibly perhaps, to feel that there is something visionary or
enthusiastic in the style of John, and begins after awhile to read him
with less respect than he reads Paul or Luke. But let him once steep
himself (if I may be allowed so to speak) in the wsws loquendi and the

sd

126 § 6, APOCRYPHAL REVELATIONS.

favourite style of the day, what before appeared strange or fanciful, is
no longer capable of producing such an impression. The nearer he can
come to such a state of feeling and views as belo to the contempo-
raries of John, the less will he find which is strange, or which excites sur-
prise, in the style and imagery of the Apocalypse.

The reader will permit me to refer to a familiar illustration. Noth-
ing can appear more strange, or enthusiastic and-extravagant, to a calm
occidental man, than the language employed in the intercourse between
the higher and lower ranks in Persia. Yet by the time that one has
read through Sir Jolgpgyecolm’s Notes on Persia, Morier’s Hadji Baba
and Zohrab, and also Fraser’s Kuzzil Bash, (not much, if any, inferior
in characterizing to either of the preceding works), he begins to sit as
quietly under Persian compliments, and displays of titles, and professions
of warm devotedness, as he does under the ordinary modes of address
and professions of respect and obedience in our western world. Every-
thing of such a nature depends on the fashion of the times for its real
meaning, and of course on the proper light in which it is to be viewed.
The man who. has never made the experiment, cannot well foretel
what effect it will produce upon his feelings, and even his criticisms,
with respect to any book of antiquity. It is—it must be—true, that
every book, when written by a man of sense who designs to instruct, is _
and must be conformed to the spirit and the dialect of the times in which
it was written. Do we judge amiss then, when we say, that everything
which helps to acquire a familiarity with that spirit and that dialect, must
be useful in the explanation of any particular work? This familiarity
may evidently be much improved, by reading the apocryphal revelations
in question. One sits down, after such a process, in company with the
Apocalypse, as with an acquaintance already more than half familiar to
him. :

How exceedingly different such a slow and gradual process of &.
ing a knowledge of the apocalyptic style and method is, from that which
judges of John’s meaning by a prior? reasoning, determining what he
does mean by what they think he ought to mean, or by judging hastily
and lightly from mere appearances and first impressions, or from mysti-
eal and cabbalistic views—no one needs to be told who is a just and pro-
per judge of these matters. It surely is not every tyro, who can well
explain the Apocalypse. Well will it be, indeed, if solid scholarship
and several decades of study, can even begin to afford the requisite ex-
planations. It is the manner of the book which makes this difficulty—
the manner as viewed by us during our first impressions, and without
due preparation for reading it. It is not to be reasonably supposed,
that John’s contemporaries experienced the same difficulty.

To sum up all in a few words: John wrote in order to be read and

§ 7. FORM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 127

understood ; and therefore intelligent persons of his day might under-
stand him. If they did, it was by virtue of familiarity with language
and imagery such as he employed. Now whatever helps us to place
ourselves in a situation like to that of John’s original readers, helps us
to read his book intelligently. It follows of course, that the apocryphal
books, written at or near his time, which exhibit to us either the lan-
guage or the style and imagery of that period, must afford us important
aid in reading and understanding the Apocalypse.

- All comparison of their value in respect to instruction, or in relation
to aesthetics, with that of the Apocalypse, will only serve to show their
insignificance, and the immeasurable superiority of the canonical Reve-
lation. But even for such a purpose, a comparison of them is of serious
importance. es

$7. Peeuliar form and arrangement of the Apocalypse.

The considerations in regard to this subject which I design in this
place to bring to view, are, in several respects, only of a more general
nature. Minute particulars in which the Apocalypse differs, as to dic-
tion or the turn of thought, from other writings either canonical or un-
canonical, must be reserved for the detail of representation, either in the
Introduction or the Commentary. What will be here said has respect
to peculiar form and arrangement.

(1) When we institute a comparison between John and the ancient He-
brew prophets, there is one circumstance at the outset which immediately
commands our attention. No prophecy of the Old Testament is thrown
into the form of an epistle. Nearly all of the prophecies in the Hebrew
Scriptures have the form of an address, or (as we may say) ofa sermon ;
and in nearly all there is mingled much of warning, reproof, exhorta-
and the like. In this latter respect the Apocalypse bears indeed a
close resemblance ; for throughout the whole composition, the writer
gives a practical turn to everything which he introduces, and often ad-
monishes, warns, and encourages. But John is alone in addressing his
whole work to particular communities of the pious, prefixed by individual
epistles to the same. In these epistles he has developed the true state
of things among the churches of his day, and shown what was the real
condition of them which called forth the work before us.

As Liicke has well remarked, we must not regard the inscription of
his work to the seven churches of Asia, in the light of a mere dedica-
tion. It was not to procure favour and patronage for the Apocalypse,
that the writer adopted such ameasure. ‘The churches in question were
deeply concerned with the contents of the work. They were exposed
to the dangers and trials which it discloses, and to the apostasy against —

*

which it so anxiously warns. No measure could be better adapted to
secure their attention to the book, than the one which John chose, viz.
that of addressing them individually by epistle. ee main body of
his work, he introduces warnings and admonitions which belong to all of
them in common. But in the epistles, he finds opportunity of saying
some things which are appropriate to the particular condition of each
church. : So soon as he has done this, the epistolary form of the compo-
sition is abandoned, and the writer betakes himself to a method of repre-
sentation, which is free from any of the embarrassments that a continu-
ance of it might we Sntien The transition however, in chap. iv,
is so easy and natural, that most readers scarcely notice it. This cir-
cumstance shows the tact of the writer; and the whole plan of the work
shows, at all events, the independence of its author, and the originality
of his conceptions, notwithstanding the very numerous subordinate re-
semblances, in parts of the work, to passages in the Old Test. Serip-
tures.

When the prophetic part of the work is completed, the writer returns,
in chap. 22: 16 seq., to his direct address to the churches, and with strik-
ing effect. He leaves a deep impression on the reader of earnestness
and sincerity.

(2) So far as John has followed any model in the form of his work, |
as it respects the use of symbols, he may be said to have conformed par-
ticularly to Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. In his symbols he most of
all resembles Daniel; in his angelic machinery, (so to speak), he resem-
bles both Daniel and Zechariah i—viii. Even these prophets, however,
less frequently employ agencies of this nature, than the writer of the
Apocalypse.

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there such an uninterrupted and
continuous employment of symbols, asin the Apocalypse. Nearly he
prophets occasionally resort to this kind of composition. Yet i -
frequent, and usually very brief, everywhere except in the three pro-
phets already named. Even there, it is brief and interrupted, in com-
parison with what we find it to be in the book before us. In this the
symbols are so arranged, that one part necessarily runs into another,
and thus makes out a series of continuous and mutually related parts.
While a minute examination will disclose the continual variety which
the writer introduces in his light and shade, yet the great outlines of all
parts of the work are so drawn, as to show that a mutual relation to,
and dependence on, each other, is a matter of calculation and design.
I could no more bring myself to believe, that different writers composed
fragments of this book which were afterwards brought together by some
other hand, than I could believe that the different parts of a watch were
accidentally and independently invented, and were finally adjusted to-

128 § 7. PECULIARITIES OF FORM

*

gether by some person skilful in making compounds. The sequel will
cast further light on this part of our subject.

That John cieggpkiney in many respects, from most of the
earlier Hebrew prophets, will be felt by every discerning reader. Not
that the latter are wanting in figurative language, bold metaphors, glow-
ing comparisons, and in eovacionsl symbols. ‘But there is in them far
more of preaching than of prediction. For the most part, also, they are
more concerned with the proximate than with the remote future ; and,
if we except Is. xl—Ixvi, nearly all the pictures of the distant future
are but merely brief sketches.. The peculiarity of Is. xI—Ixvi. has been
urged against its early composition, and not without some show of reason,
if mere analogy were competent to decide such a tion. John, how-
ever, not only uses figurative language and met r abundantly, but
he introduces symbols of such a nature, that a gr development of
them is so made out as to carry on (if I may thus express it) the repre-
sentation of a long series of historic actions. In Daniel, indeed, we find
several pieces of a similar character; but even here, the representations
are quite brief compared with those in the Apocalypse.

(8) In regard to the particular method of the disclosures made to
John, it differs somewhat from all others in the Scripture. It is not in
dreams or visions of the night. These in their nature wear the appear-
ance of something transitory and brief, if not of something in a degree
obscure. They do not seem to be appropriate for such a series of dis-
closures as John makes. ‘It is not the mere fact, that Christianity will
triumph over all opposition, and fill the world with the fruits of its victo-
ries, which John discloses. The development of successive and stirring
events, is what he has also, in some degree, undertaken tomake. Con-
sidered in this light, a mere passing dream or vision is not altogether

cl as a method of disclosure. The prophet, in the present

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 129

cai into 'a waking holy ecstasy. He is at first overpowered by the
magnificence and splendour of the scene before him. But being strength-
ened and encouraged, he resumes the use of all his powers. The Ohris-
tophany, in chap i—iii, takes place in Patmos, on earth; but the suc-
ceeding visions are partly in heaven (4: 1 seq.), and partly on the sea-
shore (12: 18 or 13:1), and’ partly in the wilderness (17:3 seq.). In
the circumstance, that John in his ecstasy is rapt into the heavenly
world, he stands alone. No prophet before was introduced to a similar
scene, in such a way. Paul, indeed, was caught up into the third
heaven; but he heard words “which it was not lawful to utter,” 2 Cor.
12:1 seq. John has uttered what he heard and saw.

There is something strikingly appropriate in all this. If John was
to be fitted to disclose what was contained in the heavenly book, which

VOL. I. 17

1380 § 7. PECULIARITIES OF FORM

was sealed with seven seals, then the contents of this book must be in-
spected in an appropriate manner, and in one different from that which
was common in more ordinary disclosures. The tact of the writer, (if
indeed this circumstance were to be attributed to tact), would exhibit
itself here manifestly to great advantage. At all events, the whole thing
is very appropriately conducted and represented. The apocryphal pro-
ductions of the Ascension of Isaiah, and the fourth book of Ezra, the
Book of Enoch, and also the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs (c.
Levi), exhibit a similar rapture into heaven, copied, perhaps, more or
less directly from the Apocalypse, or at any rate resulting from the taste
which it had introduced, or fostered. Yet how faint are the impressions
made upon the reader, by these latter works!. How immeasurably in-
ferior to the lofty and thrilling exhibitions proffered to our view by the
Apocalyptist ! Whoever doubts the superior illumination of John’s
mind, when he wrote the Revelation, will do well to read the apocry-
phal works in question, and make the comparison.

(4) Thus far we have compared the Apocalypse, as to its epistolary
form, and as to the nature, frequency, and continuous series of its sym-
bols, with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament. We come now
to another development respecting the form of this book, of a somewhat
different nature. It has special respect to that part of the general idea
of form, which concerns the arrangement of the contents, or the order in
which the respective parts of composition are presented to us, and the
relation in which they stand to each other and to a common principle
of arrangement.

If I did not fear being taxed with an ambition to coin new words, I
might call a prominent principle of arrangement throughout the Apoca-
lypse, the principle of Nummrosiry. I must even do this, at the risk of
critical disapprobation. This word does not mean, as employed by me,
that the book consists of many or numerous parts; for to isa ti
idea, one might speak of its nwmerousness, which is an old word. o not
mean moreover, by numerosity, to designate in this place the idea, that
the book is composed i in poetic measure, which is often called nwmbers ;
although it is in reality modelled, in some degree and through most of
the work, after the Hebrew poetic parallelisms. What I wish to desig-
nate is simply this, viz., that the Apocalypse throughout, with scarcely
any exception, is so fecraceil that either the number 3, or else 7, 4, 10,
12, and (if parallelism be counted) 2, control its modes of development,
i.e. the arrangement of its parts, greater and smaller, the grouping of its
objects, the assignment of attributes to them, the epexegetical clauses,
and the order me action main and subordinate. Above all, the number
THREE stands conspicuous in the whole plan, in all its parts considera-
ble or minute. Next to this stands the so-called sacred number seven %

*

then four, then twelve, and lastly ten. Parallelism, as exhibited in He-
brew poetry, not of the strictest kind but of that which is more free
from rigid rule, reigns nearly everywhere. But I do not reckon this
asa part.of the nwmerosity of the book. All critics are now agreed,
that the Apocalypse is poetic in its very genius and nature. It is not,
indeed, in Greek or Latin measure. But it is substantially of the same
nature with Hebrew poetry, as to its diction, its symbols, and the whole
round of its ideas. Yet few, if any, have undertaken to trace even the
evidences of Hebrew parallelism or stichometry in it; and almost none
speak of its mwmerosity, with the exception of Ewald and Zillig, who
have disclosed some small part of it.* = i

That parallelism for substance reigns almost everywhere, (some ex-
ceptions we may find in all prophecy, even in > needs no other
proof than an attentive perusal of the book by any one who is familiar
with Hebrew poetry. The disjecta membra poetae are found on every
side, and in every quarter. It would be superfluous to make a formal
attempt to prove what lies open to noon-day inspection. Hereafter I
shall, however, exhibit'a few specimens of the usual parallelisms of the
book. My present object is to produce evidence of the nwmerosity m
question throughout the Apocalypse.

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 1381

(a) Trichotomy, or tripartite divisions and groups, in the Apocalypse.
- (1) The first and leading division of this nature, (which however is
hardly artificial), is, (a) The Prologue, chap. i—iii. (6) The Visions
or main body of the work, iv—xxii. 5. (c) The Epilogue, 22: 6—21.
Each of these divisions exhibits trichotomy, moreover, in all its grada-
tions, throughout its appropriate subdivisions.

* The first of these, only in a few cases toward the close of the book ; the lat-
e fully, but in many respects in a very inadequate and unsatisfactory way.
s book [ have not; but a copious review of it, (in Studien und Kritiken,
1842. Heft.IIT.), has given a disclosure of his views on the subject of numerosity.
This [ read, however, only after all my own views were formed, and published
in part in a little pamphlet for the use of the class-room. Ztillig, (Offenba-
rung Johannis, 2 vol. 8vo. 1834—40), has made seven the reigning number in the
Apocalypse, and almost entirely overlooked the immeasurably greater predomin-
ance of trichotomy, i. e. tripartite division, and triplex grouping of objects. His
views of the Apocalypse in general, [ shal] have occasion to speak of’ in the se-
quel. As it respects the subject of numerosity, the views which | develope orig-
inated entirely from often repeated study of the book, in order that | might write
a commentary upon it. I haye frequently reviewed them, and made some altera-
tions and corrections. They are doubtless susceptible of still more, which would
be to their improvement. But one mind cannot do everything at once, specially
in such a great and complicated matter. At least, | feel that mine cannot. But
the public will now have an opportunity to examine and judge, how far I am cor-
rect in these views respecting the numerosity of the Apocalypse which I now

communicate.

* §
+
132 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

(2) Tur Protocun. After the title of the book, (which is joined
with a brief historical reference to its author and a commendation to the
notice and study of the reader), follows, (a) The dedication of the
work to the seven churches of Asia, 1: 4—8. (6) The Christophany,
or manifestation of Jesus to John, 1: 9—20. (¢) The epistles to the
seven churches.

The portions a and 6 are too short, and too terse with descriptive
matter, to permit of subdivision ; but not so with the epistles. Each of
the latter is divided into three parts; (a) A description of him who ad-
dresses the churches, by the mention of some of his attributes; 2: 1.
2: 8. 2: 12. 2:18. 3: 1. 3: 7. 3:14. (6) Disclosure of the. character-
istics of each church, with appropriate admonition or reproof; (in the
sequel to each of the preceding texts quoted). (ce) Each epistle closes
with excitement to obedience, rendered more urgent and efficacious by .
promises of reward, or by threatenings. _In these respects there is an
entire uniformity through the whole of the epistles.

(3) Tue Vistons. In these, (iv—xxii. 5), there are three great
catastrophes, to which all else has reference and is adjusted. (a) That
of Sodom. spiritually so-called, i. e. «the place where our Lord was
crucified” or Jerusalem (11: 8), comprising chap. iv—xi. (6) Thatof
mystic Babylon (Rome), chap. xii—xx. 3. (¢) That of Gog and Ma-
gog, chap. 20: 4—10. Each of these catastrophes has a prologue or
proem; (a) Chap. iv, v. (6) Chap. xii. (c) Chap. 20: 4—7, where
the thousand years and the end of them stand as introductory to the
loosing of Satan and the invasion of Gog and Magog.

In each of the catastrophes, (the last excepted), there are three Mo-
rae or Episodes, which contain various. matters more or less connected
with the main body of the Epopee, and which not only serve to intro-
duce variety into the composition and increase’the interest of it, as well
as to deepen the impressions made upon the reader, but also to exhibit
the long suffering of God in waiting for sinners to repent. Some-of
them, however, are devoted to strengthening the assurances, that the
wicked will be punished and the righteous rewarded. Episode 1 name
that which arrests the progress of the main action for any considerable
time, and diverts our attention to something which is but indirectly con-
nected with it. Tue rirsr CaTastropHe comprises three episodes ;
viz. (@) The sealing and safety of the 144,000 Jewish followers of the
Lamb, chap. vii. (6) The appearance of an angel, who gives assur-
ance of the speedy fall of the hostile power which wages war with
the saints, and commissions John to utter new predictions, when the
contents of the book with seven seals shall have all had their accom-
plishment, chap. x. (¢) Preparation for the speedy consummation of
the catastrophe, by guarding the most holy place against destruction,

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 135

(a symbol that all of Judaism but its real spirituality is to be destroyed),
chap. 11: 1, 2; and also by the aggravated sins of persecutors against
the two martyr-witnesses, who’ make their appearance in ‘order to ad-
monish and warn them, chap. 11:3—14, Tur secon CaTasTrorHE
also comprises three episodes ; (a) Chap. xiv, which exhibits merely
symbols and assurances of the safety of the church, and of the over-
throw of the dragon, beast, and false prophet. (6) The explanatory in-
terlude, in chap. xvii. (c) Renewed assurances of Babylon’s utter ruin,
and anticipated lament over her by various classes of persons, chap. xviii.

‘Tue THIRD CaTasTropae belongs to the distant future ; and there-
fore, like all predictions of a similar nature in the Old ‘Testament, is
brief, 20: 4—10. Everything connected with such a future, in chap.
xx—xxii, is also brief, with the single exception that the glories of the
heavenly city are enlarged upon by the writer; most appropriately as
it respects the encouragement which he designs to give to Christians
under their disheartening circumstances. In such a case, i. e. when the
whole of the third catastrophe, even if we include its prologue, in real-
ity occupies only some seven verses, the usual trichotomy is necessarily
excluded.

Before we dismiss the Episodes under consideration, let us, while our
attention is directed to them, take a view of their internal arrangement.
As to the first. catastrophe, the first episode in*it (chap. vii.) may be dis-
tinguished into three several parts; (#) Preparation for sealing the ser-
vants of God, 7:1—3. (6) The sealing with the enumeration of those
to whom it was extended, 7:4—8. (c) Rejoicing in heaven, with thanks-
giving, consequent upon this transaction, 7: 9—17.. The second episode
(chap. x.) might be thus divided; (a) The appearance of an angel, with
solemn assurances and tokens that the persecuting enemy are speedily
to be destroyed, and thus the predictions of the book with seven seals
to be accomplished, 10: 1—7. (6) John is furnished by the angel with
anew book, for the sake of further development, and commanded to
eat it, i. e. eagerly to devour its contents, 10: 8—10. (ec) A new com-
mission to continue his prophesying, and extend it to the great multitude
of nations, is given him. (Here 2aédw moogeretoat (10: 11) shows, that
the contents of the sealed book would be exhausted by the seventh trum-
pet). In this case, however, the trichotomy is less palpable than usual.
The third episode (11: 1—13) discloses the determination to preserve
the most holy and spiritual part of the ancient worship, notwithstanding
the wasting of Judea and Jerusalem; and that the destruction about to
take place, will be greatly aggravated by the persecution of faithful wit-
nesses. It is divided thus: (@) Chap. 11: 1, 2, contains the directions
for preserving the best part of Judaism. (6) The persecution, death,
and resurrection, of the two witnesses, 11:3—12. (c). The manifestation

” *

134 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

of further divine displeasure, with threatening of pend and final de-
struction, 11: 13,.14.

The episodes in the second catastrophe are still more definitely tri-
chotomized. The first (ch. xiv.) exhibits, (7) The Lamb, with the
144,000 who. had been sealed and saved under the first catastrophe,
(comp. chap. vii.) The whole spectacle is a visible and significant em-
blem and assurance of Christ’s power to save. The joy of the Saviour
in his faithful followers, and their notes of praise and thanksgiving, are
combined with the symbol, 14:1—5. (6) Three angels successively
appear, and make proclamation, first, of the universal spread of the gos-
pel; then of the fall of Babylon ; and thirdly, of the punishment of those
who belong to her, 14: 6-—12. A voice from heaven sanctions this, by
assurance of the happiness secured to the righteous, 14: 13. (ce) Sym-
' bols are employed, in the third portion of chap. xiv, in order to express
with still greater intensity the assurance of the destruction of Babylon.
In the exhibition of these, three angels are successively introduced, 14:
14—20. The three angels are mentioned in vs. 15,17, 18. The
Gmows vig dv Peamou, in v. 14, is doubtless the Saviour himself; comp.
Dan. 7:18. In the second episode (chap. xvii.), we find, (a) Occur-
rences and phenomena preparatory to the disclosure about to be made,
17: 1—6. (6) Description of the beast with seven heads and ten horns,
17: 7—14. (ec) Of the woman sitting over many waters, 17: 15—18.
The third episode (chap. xviii.) exhibits several trichotomies; viz. (a)
Assurances of final and irremediable destruction to Babylon, so that all
the people of God are warned to remove far from her, 18: 1—8. \ (0)
Exhibition of the lamentation about to be sung over her, 18: 9—20.. (e)
A striking and final symbol of her speedy and remediless overthrow,
18: 21—24. The second member of this trichotomy, viz. the lamenta-
tion, is again subdivided thus: (#4) Lamentation by allied kings and
princes, 18: 9, 10. (6) By traders and merchants, 18: 11—16. (e)
By seamen and ship-owners, 18: 17—19; to which the author adds an
epiphonema of an opposite character, on the sie of the redeemed, 18:
20. In each of the three parts, ovai! oval! 1 m0dug 7) weyahn, is re-
peated. In each; the closing sentence says: “In one hour thy desola-
tion has come,” or uses words of the same import.

It is worthy of special remark here, also, that in the first and earners
catastrophes, two episodes immediately precede the final consummation ;
e. g. in chap. x. xi, and in chap. xvii. xviii, The true nature of the
economy of the book cannot be seen in its proper light, without a care-
ful examination of all these adjustments and mutual relations of the au-
thor’s plan. Not only the unity of the piece is demonstrated by such an
arrangement, but the nature: and progress of the action in the Epopee
are very significantly developed. The question; whether there is more

+

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 135

than one catastrophe, seems‘ to be decided by the nature of the plan.
As to the third catastrophe, the brevity which the author adopts, pre-
cludes all artificial arrangement.

Having completed our view of the episodes, let us now go back to the
main action of the piece.

In the arrangement of this, the number seven is, if I may so express
it, the presiding genius. E. g. we have seven seals, seven trumpets with
their angels, and seven vials with their angels. _ Of course, so far as
this number has control, trichotomy must be either excluded, or be sub-
ordinate. The latter of these takes place. _ In each of the sevens, the
author makes two divisions ; first a tetrachotomy, i.e. a division into four
parts, and secondly a trichotomy, which comprises the remaining three.
To each of these groups is assigned its distinetive phenomena; as we
shall see hereafter.

Relinquishing, at present, the further notice of the groups of sevens
and fours, we will follow the number three, through the parts of the
main action. The episodes have been already’ examined.

In the triplex group which is constituted by the last three of each of
the heptades or divisions by seven, we find, in nearly if not quite all the
cases, distinct and marked. peculiarities.. For example; in 6: 9 seq.,
(where the fifth seal commences), there is plainly an entire new turn of
thought. The first four seals (6: 1—8) develope the formation of the
dreadful array commissioned against the persecuting power. All be-
longs most plainly to the constitution of one great- army. But in the
group of three which follows, there is a regular and constant accession to
the action of the main plot. The martyrs point to their blood, and call
for vengeance. At the opening of the sixth seal, all heaven is roused
and prepares for the condign punishment of persecutors. ‘Then comes
the episode (chap. vii.), which shqws how the innocent will be put in a
state of safety. We then naturally expect the consummation ; for so
did all heaven, while they stood in awful silence, 8:1. But the seventh
seal disparts, and divides the consummation into seven stages, signalized
by as many trumpets. Here again we have tetrachotomy and tricho-
tomy. The first group of four has reference to plagues that principally
concern the state of the earth; which is divided into land, sea, rivers
and fountains, and the welkin above, making the contour of the visible
creation. The remaining group of three successively developes the lo-
custs, the horsemen from the Euphrates, and (after the episodes in x.
xi.), the final tremendous assault by thunder, lightning, hail, and earth-
quake ; viii—xi. We have yet.a third series of sevens, in chap. Xv.
xvi.; (a circumstance in the arrangement which must not be forgotten).
Here is the like division into groups of four and three. The first four
vials have respect to the various portions of the world, viz. the earth,

136 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

e

the sea, the rivers and fountains, and the ruling planet of the welkin
above. Then comes, with the last three, more direct attacks upon per-
secutors, 16: 10—21. The seat of the beast is affected; the Euphrates
is dried up, in order to make a way for foreign invaders ; and finally the
air is so affected by the seventh vial, that lightnings, thunders, and de-
structive hail follow, and an earthquake shatters the capital of the per-
secuting power.

From this review of the three series of sevens in the book, it is plain
that trichotomy, although it here acts a secondary, still acts a very con-
spicuous, part. The consummation of the catastrophes in each case, is
marked by trichotomy, and exhibits the most intense and destructive
measures on the part of the great Conqueror.

It remains still, that we take a view of the prologues-or proems which
stand before those groups of seven which indicate directly an advance-
ment in the main action. Chap. iv. v. constitute the first proem; and
one, I may add, of great.solemnity and exquisite beauty and majesty.
Each of these chapters will be found, by minute investigation, to be ca-
pable of a division by trichotomy; e. g. 4: 2, 3, the divine majesty; 4
4—7, the attendant ministers around the throne of God; 4: 8—11, the
symphony of praise or worship. So in-chap. v, the trichotomy is mark-
ed by xat eiSov, vs. 1, 6, 9; in the first instance only is this phrase re-_
peated for the sake of emphasis. But as these divisions are not strongly
marked, and. slide easily and naturally into each other, I will not insist
on them in this initial proem.

The proem before the action under the seventh seal (8: 3—5), is very
short; for here the action is not to be immediately consummated. In
like manner the proem before the last woe-trumpet (11: 15—18) is short ;
for two long episodes have just preceded.

As at the commencement of the first. catastrophe, the proem is long
and very striking and solemn, (ch. iy. v.), so is it in the introduction to
the second catastrophe. As in the first, the theophany, the sealed book,
the Lamb, the attendant and reverent living creatures, elders, and an-
gels, excite the mind to high expectations in regard to the sequel ; so in
the second, (as the former scenes will not bear repetition), a different
but exalted theme is introduced, viz., the incarnation of Christ, the ma-
lignant efforts of Satan to destroy him, the defeat and degradation of
this enemy, and his consequent determination to seek revenge. All this
prepares the reader for a deep interest in the sequel; which is not
disappointed. This second principal proem is almost as long as the first ;
and immec y after this, the main action in the second catastrophe
commences, and persecution and heathenism move furiously on.—But ,
we are now concerned only with the trichotomy of the prologue. ‘This
is quite plain; (a) The appearance, technogony, and dangers of the

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. - 137

woman clothed with the sun, and of her offspring, 12:1—6. (6) The
war of Michael and his angels against the devil and his angels, in order
to repel the assaults of Satan, 12:7—12. (c) The vindictive rage and
malice of Satan on account of his defeat, and his determination to per-
secute the church, 12: 13—17.

Before the consummation of the second catastrophe begins its final
movement, stands another prologue, serving merely to mark preparation
for the onset, chap. xv. This may be subdivided into (a) The pre-
sentation of the scenery appropriate to the occasion, 15: 1,2. (6) The
song of anticipated victory, 15: 3,4. (c) The commission of the seven
angels, charged to commence the work of overthrow, 15: 5—8.

Chap. xvi. exhibits the pouring out of all the seven vials, without any
delay or interposition. For this mode of proceeding the author seems

_ to have had good reason. The destruction of. great Babylon, and of
the beast and false prophet, is not absolute and final. The idea seems
to have been, in the mind of the writer, that a country so almost bound-
less as the Roman empire, could not, with any manifest probability, be
supposed to be destroyed merely by shattering its great capital and other
large cities. The contest with the beast and false prophet would be of
longer duration than that under the first catastrophe, where the destruc-
tion of the great capital of a small country would involve the whole
country in ruin. Accordingly, in chap. xviii. xix. we find the contest
still continued, and finally completed. Since now the Roman empire is
the chosen symbol of the second hostile power, and of its wide domain,
has not the writer displayed great tact in the proprieties with which he
conducts, continues, and finally ends the contest? And if the persecu-
tion of Christians by Pagans be symbolized by all this, surely there is
great propriety in not closing it by one great blow, like that in the first
catastrophe, 11: 15—19. If, moreover, there be a good foundation for
what I have now said, then the reason is apparent, why prologue should
be here omitted before the seventh vial. In reality the contest is finish-
ed in chap. 19: 11 seq., and before this final scene, we have a prologue
as usual. But in chap. xvi, while the great and decisive blow is struck,
at the pouring out of the last. vial which makes a kind of catastrophe,
yet still it is not a wholly completed one.

In the proem in chap. xix, there are three divisions: (a) The shout
of anticipated victory, with praise to God on account of it, 19: 1—4.
(6) A renewal, by divine command, of the same, 19:5—8. (c) As-
surances of the final happiness of saints and martyrs, 19:9, 10. During
the first shouts of praise, @Adshovice occurs three times.

Thus much for the prologues as connected with the main action or
the catastrophes. We have already seen, that the third and last catas-
trophe of necessity dispenses with them.

VOL. I.

*

138 @ § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

In regard to the final action in the second catastrophe, it remains to be
noticed, that here also is the usual trichotomy. (a) The marching
forth of the great Captain of salvation with his army, 19: 11—16. (6)
Invitation to all the ravenous beasts and birds to come to the approach-
ing slaughter, 19: 17, 18. (c) Final overthrow and destruction of the
enemy, 19: 19—21. Or rather, as Satan is leagued with this enemy,
this portion should include also chap. 20: 1—8, for this indicates his pun-
ishment, as well as that of the beast and false prophet, all of whom
were leagued together.

The third catastrophe, with its proem, 20: 4—10, as has been re-
marked, excludes trichotomy by its brevity. Yet the whole may be
divided into proem, the victory over Gog and Magog, and the final
punishment of Satan. The sequel of the book is rather an epipho-
nema than a part of the regular drama or Epopee ; and yet, so exquis-
itely is it imagi d adapted to the writer’s purpose, that we should
as willingly part with any portion of the book as with this. By no part
of it has the author presented higher moral excitement to his readers,
than by this. Indeed we should feel his plan in a measure to be in-
complete without it.

The renfainder of the book, 20: 11—22: 5, exhibits, (@) The final
resurrection and judgment, 20: 11—13. (6) Hell, 20: 14, 15. (e)
Heaven, 21: 1—22: 5. On the appropriateness of enlarging on this
last topic, I have already remarked, (p. 133 above.)

The epilogue, 22: 6—20, consists, (a) Of the address of the angel
to John, 22: 6—11. (6) The declarations of the Saviour respecting the
things predicted and the promises made, 22: 12—17. (¢) The solemn
assurances of the writer of the book respecting the sacred and invio-
lable contents of it, 22: 18—20. The whole concludes with a bene-
diction.

Thus have we followed trichotomy through all parts of the book,'from
the beginning to the end. The indelible stamp of one and the same
hand is on every part. of the production. But all which has thus far
been exhibited, has reference only to larger portions of the book, con-
taining one or more paragraphs. We might stop with this as being suf-
ficient for our present purpose ; but in this place it will be most conven-
tent and proper to pursue the investigation of these trichotomies, as
exhibited in particular phrases and groups of objects, in all parts of the
book.

I on but few of these in extenso, limiting myself in this
respec ly to such as will serve for specimens of all the rest. The
only which the reader can satisfy himself, therefore, as to the
great mass of these minor trichotomies, will be to open his Greek Tes-
tament, and follow through the references which I shall give him,

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. “ 1389

Chap. 1: 4, (in the description of God), é0 0 wr, xal 0 qv, nat 6 éo-
zouevog- In 1: 4, 5, grace and peace are desired from the 6 0, from
the seven spirits, and from Jesus Christ. In 1: 5, three attributives are
assigned to Jesus Christ. In 1: 5, 6, three things are mentioned which
he has done for us. 1: 8, three groups of attributives are assigned to
God, one of which is subdivided into three. 1: 17, three attributes ascri-
bed to Christ, 0 zedzos, 0 éoxatos, 6 Ca, (plainly belonging together).
1: 19, write three things ; (but perhaps @ eict means, what they signify,
which would destroy the trichotomy.)

Chap. 2: 2, two groups of three each. 2: 3, three things done. 2: 5,
three to be done. 2: 9, three members in the epexegesis of Zoya, (cases
like this often occur). 2: 14, Balaam did three things. 2: 20, Jezabel
does three things.

Chap. 3: 5, three parts in the reward. 3: 7, three different actions
ascribed to Christ. 38: 8, three good qualities of the church at Phila-
delphia. 3: 9, the false Jews will be made to to te things. 3: 12,
three names to be written upon him who conquers. 3: 14, three in the
group of attributives ascribed to Christ. 38: 17, three things which the
church says of itself. 3: 18, three things which the church must do.

Chap: 4: 4, three predicates of the twenty-four elders. 4: 4, light~
nings, voices, thunders, issue from the throne. 4: 8, three things predicat-
ed of the four living creatures—cy.o¢ thrice repeated—three appellations
of God—three attributes ascribed to him ; (making four groups of three
in one verse). 4: 9; glory, honour, thanksgiving. 4: 10, the twenty-
four elders do three things. 4: 11, glory, honour, power.

Chap. 5: 3, heaven, earth, underworld. 5: 5, three designations of
Christ. 5: 6, in the midst of three things. 5: 11, round about three things.

Chap. 6: 2, three things ascribed to the conqueror. _ 6: 6, three things
attending the development of the third seal, 6: 12—14, two groups of
three each, the consequences of the opening of the sixth seal. The
second group, in verses 13, 14, is more composite than the first, inasmuch
as it comprises two comparisons for illustration.

Chap. 7: 1, three things on which the wind is not to blow. 7: 3, the
same. 7: 11, angels standing round three things. 7: 16, three evils
which the redeemed shall not suffer. 7: 17, three things which God
and the Lamb shall do for them.

Chap. 8: 5, three things which the angel did. 8:7, three things
which took place—one third of the earth burned up, in three different
respects. 8: 8, one third of the sea; and the like twice in verse 9, and
so in verse 10, 11, and 12, (five times in the last). 8: 13, e woes—
three angels to sound the last three woe-trumpets. dl

Chap. 9: 4, three things not to be hurt. 9: 15, one third part of men.
9: 17, three things predicated of the horsemen—also fire, smoke, and

140 & § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

brimstone, from the mouths of the horses. 9: 18, three plagues destroy
one third part of men—by fire, smoke, and brimstone. 9: 20, twice
three predicates of eidaha.

* Chap. 10: 1, twice three predicates of the angel. 10: 6, God created
three things.

Chap. 11: 1, John ordered to measure three things. 11: 6, witnesses
can dothree things. 11:7, the beast will do three things. 11: 10, the
enemies of the witnesses will do three things. 11: 17, three attributives
of God. 11: 18, two groups of three each who are to be rewarded, viz.
servants, prophets, saints, and @oBovpevor, pixool, wéyodor—three things
to be done, to judge, to give to his saints, to destroy the wicked.

Chap. 12: 1, three attributives of the woman. 12: 4, a third part of
the stars. 12: 9, the dragon is serpent, devil, and satan. 12: 10, sal-
vation, power, and reign of God. 12: 16, the earth did three things.

Chap. 13: 2, ike to a panther, a bear, and a lion—the dragon
gives him thre . 13:6, to blaspheme three things. V.7, power
to do three things. 13:16, three groups of antithetic or discrepant
classes of men.

Chap. 14: 2, voice from heaven like three things. 14: 3, new song
in presence of three things. 14: 4, three predicates of the redeemed.
14: 7, do homage to God in three ways. 14: 19, the angel did three
things.

Chap. 15: 2, the martyrs are conquerors over three things.

Chap. 16: 13, three unclean spirits out of the mouth of three different
beings. 16: 18, lightnings, voices, thunders, to be grouped together.
16: 19, Babylon cleft into three parts—cup of three qualifications to be
given her.

Chap. 17: 3, three attributives of the woman. 17: 4, three more at-
tributives. 17: 8, two groups of attributives, each three. 17: 11, three
more, in like manner. 17: 14, invited, select, faithful. 17:17, God
has inclined them to do three things.

Chap. 18:2, Babylon has become three things. 18: 6, do three things
to Babylon. 18:7, Babylon claims to be three things. 18: 8, death,
mourning, famine, are to be grouped together. 18: 16, clothed with
three things—adorned with three. 18:20, three classes of persons who
are to rejoice.

Chap. 19: 1, salvation, glory, power. 19:7, let us do three things.
19: 18, two groups of three each, whose flesh is to be eaten, (the last
group bi-membral). 19:19, three gathered together to make war.

Chap. 21: 1, three things have passed away. 21: 4, one leading
group of three, and one subordinate one. 21: 13, four times three gates.
21: 15, measure three things. 21: 16, length, breadth, height.

Chap. 22: 13, three groups of divine predicates. 22: 15, two groups

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 141

of three. 22: 16, root-shoot, offspring, morning-star. 22: 17, three
classes invited to respond and accept the offer made.

It is now time to make some remarks on these striking phenomena.
Not that trichotomy is the only kind of numerosity which belongs to the
Apocalypse; for, as we shall see in the sequel, seven, four, twelve, and
ten, all have their respective claims. Yet the influence of these is far
inferior to the’ all-pervading influence of trichotomy, or triplicity of
grouping.

But whence these multiform and everywhere abounding ériplicities in
the Apocalypse? Was John deeply imbued, as not a few have asserted,
with the Cabbalistic art of making out the significancy of words by va-
rious modes of combining the numbers, which the letters of those words
might designate? That John attached meaning, and even by no, means
unimportant significancy, to his triads, heptades, tetrades, and in some
few cases decades and duodecades, I am not abc deny, for how can
it be denied by any one who has minutely a d and scanned the
Apocalypse? But with the single exception of chap. 13: 18, (the num-
ber of the beast which is 666), he has made no near approach to the
mystical use of numbers by the Cabbalists; and even there, as we shall
see in due time, he has not followed so much the Cabbalists, as a pre-
vailing fashion of the day.* There is no certain evidence, nor (as it
seems to me) any evidence even probable, that the Cabbalism of the
Rabbins.had advanced beyond the mere germ, when the Revelation was
written. At all events, the manner in which John introduces his groups,
either in the larger or smaller parts of his work, in conformity with the
principles of numerosity, is something very different from the Gematria
of Cabbalism, as exhibited in the note below.

In the New Testament there is plainly nothing elsewhere, which re-

* The Cabbalists practised the interpretation of Scriptures by the use of numbers,
in three different ways: (1) By Gemuatria (s.9W723, Yewwergca ?), which means a
computation of the numerical value of letters in one or more words; and then the
application of the same number to another word which is equivalent, i. e. of the
same numerical value. E. g. Gen. 49: 10, ndow Riss, Shiloh will come = 358 in
numerical value; and nw designates the same number; therefore, Shiloh rill
come means the Messiuh. (2) Nutartkon (jip77'212), in which single letters of a
particular word, or of different words, are made significant or the representatives
of other entire words; e. g. Gen. 1: 1, x4 may be considered as designating 2x,
man, 73, (Son, Spirit, Father) ; and consequently sn points us to the doctrine of
the Trinity. (3) Temura (s41%0 concealment) indicates an arbitrary transposi-
tion of the letters of any word so as to constitute another and “ % word; e.g.
Gen. 1: 1, n°wx73 transposed makes s4¥7N3, i. e. the month Tishri, or Septem-
ber; which shows that the world was created in that month!! I need not say to
the intelligent and observing reader, that there is nothing in all the Apocalypse
which has any resemblance to either of these extravagant conceits.

142 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

sembles in any considerable degree: this trichotomy of the Apocalypse.
But did not John find his exemplar in the Old Testament? I hesitate
‘not to believe that he did. And this can be easily pointed out.

In all the Old Testament there is but one extended piece, which we
can properly name an pic or Epopee. That the book of Job consti-
tutes a poem of this nature, cannot well be denied. It exhibits the es-
sential features of an Epopee; not of a character bellicose and highly
romantic by reason of adventures, like the Iliad and Aeneid, but of a
character moral and didactic, mingled indeed with incidents of a deeply
interesting nature. It has action—progressive action, and as much
unity as belongs to other epics. Its poetic fancy and spirit have never
been exceeded—amight I not say, have scarcely if ever been equalled?
And he, who would dispute against the application of the title Hpopee
to it, would only busy himself with logomachies. A very circumscribed
definition of Epopee, might exclude the book of Job from a claim to this
title ; but what obliges us to regard the limits of the word as being so
narrow ? 5

In Ps. xviii, in Is. xiii. xiv, and also in Hab. iii, we have a kind of
miniature Epopee. But an epinikion or triumphal song is in reality
the proper title of each of these ; for it describes them with sufficient ac-
curacy. They differ much from the plan of the book of Job or of the
Apocalypse.

All the leading characteristics which have just been ascribed to the
book of Job, belong also to the Apocalypse. It is in its very nature
poetical. It has a unity of main design. It exhibits rapid, varied, and
wonderful action. It celebrates, indeed, not the triumphs of an Achil-
les, an Aeneas, or a Tancred, but the triumphs of Him who is King of
kings and Lord of lords. It is not the sacking of Tlium, nor the subju-
gation of an Italian province—nor merely the taking of Jerusalem, which
is described, but the conquest of a world, and the complete subjugation
of all the powers of darkness. It approaches much nearer than the book
of Job, to the usual characteristics of a proper Epopee.

I have been obliged in some measure to digress, in order to prepare
the way for the sequel of my remarks on the form of the Apocalypse in
respect to trichotomy. As Job is the Epic of the Old Testament, and
the only one, so is the Apocalypse the Epic and the only one of the New.
Are these two works, now, which in this general respect have the like
character, similar to each other in regard to trichotomy ?

To answer this question, it becomes necessary briefly to point out the
same peculiarity in the book of Job; and this may be easily done.

The first grand division of it is into (2) Prologue. (6) The poem
proper. (¢c) Epilogue. Then (I.) The prologue is subdivided into ac-
‘counts, (a) Of Job’s prosperity. (6) Of his losses. (¢) Of his sickness

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 143

and trials. Then (II.) The poem prdper is divided into three leading
parts; (a) The dispute of Job with his friends. (6) The address of
Elihu, who proffers himself as umpire. (c) The closing address of Je-
hovah. Next, as to subordinate triplicities, we We ir escrito a with three
friends who come to console Job. These address him three times each,
(with only one exception, which will be noticed in the sequel). To
each of them he makes three replies, (abating one in relation to the ex-
ception noted). Finally, Job’s closing speeches are divided into three,
chap. xxvi—xxxi. As a substitute for Zophar’s third speech, Elihu
breaks in, through his impatience, and makes an address; and then he
makes three speeches for himself; chap. xxxii—xxxvii. It would seem,
moreover, to lie upon the face of the whole matter, that the dispute was
carried on for three days, the three friends each once addressing Job on
each day, and Job making three replies. Last of all, God himself inter-
poses, and makes three addresses to Job and his friends; chap. xxxviii
—xli. The epilogue closes the piece ; which eee (a) Of Job’s jus-
tification. (6). Of his reconciliation with his friends. (¢) Of his final
prosperity.

If now we look away from these trichotomies, which lie upon the face
of the book in general, and turn our attention to the individual addresses
of each speaker, we may easily find, in most of them, a triplex division
of contents. To begin with the first complaint of Job; (a) The day of
his birth is beshrewed, 3: 1—10. (6) Earnest wishes that he had per-
ished in the womb, 3: 10—19. (¢) Remonstrance against giving exist-
ence to the wretched, 3: 20—26. So in the speech of Eliphaz; (a)
Gentle remonstrance against the excessive grief of Job, 4: 1—5. (6)
Intimations that the innocent are never involved in such calamities, 4:
6—11. (ce) A vision in confirmation of this sentiment, 4:12—21. And
thus it is in many, or rather, in most of the speeches. In some, how-
ever, either the brevity or the nature of the subject, or both, do not ad-
mit trichotomy. Below this trichotomy of paragraphs, so to speak, we
seldom find triplicity in individual expressions. The rigid adherence to
parallelism, in the book of Job, necessarily excluded them. But not so
in the Apocalypse; for we have seen, that from the beginning to the end
it is full of triplex individual groups.*

Tf it be said: All this is too artificial for us to think of applying it to
a book so sacred as the Scriptures; the answer is not difficult. Artifi-
cial arrangement is not wanting in many parts of the Old Testament,
nor in some parts of the New, besides the Apocalypse. For example ;

* In respect to the trichotomy of the book of Job, 1 must ackateriedge my ob-
ligation in part to the recent work of Koester upon this book. In the preface to
this work, the writer has disclosed his views in regard to triplicity ; but he takes
no notice of the Apocalypse in this respect.

144 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

we have no less than seven alphabetic Psalms, i. e. Psalms in which
each line begins with a successive letter of the Alphabet in order, viz.
y. Xxxiv. xxxvii. cxi. exii. cxix. cxlv. Psalm cxix. has added
o the artificial arrangement which prevails in the others, for in
this longest of all the Psalms, each letter of the alphabet introduces a
continuous series of eight verses, each line of which begins with the
same letter. Hence the names of the sections, Aleph, Beth, etc. In
Prov. 31:10 seq., there is another alphabetic composition, like the usual
Psalms of this character. In the book of Lamentations, the whole com-
position is of this character. Chap. i. ii. iv. v. resemble in manner the
usual alphabetic Psalms ; while chap. iii. exhibits three successive lines
each beginning with the same letter, and so through the alphabet, mak-
ing sixty-six verses, instead of twenty-two as in the others. Here the
number three .acts, of course, a conspicuous part.

In the New Testament we have the genealogy of Matthew divided
into three series of twice seven, i. e. fourteen. Peter’s vision, in Acts x,
was thrice repeated; Peter denied Christ thrice; Paul besought the
Lord thrice ; the master of the barren fig-tree came three years seeking
fruit, Luke 13: 7; a woman hid leaven in three measures of meal, Matt.
13: 33; and so three score is often employed. These examples, how-
ever, constitute a mere reference to a thing which is widely diffused. .
But I need not exhibit, here, what every Concordance will easily supply.

Whatever now may be the ground or reason of all these ¢triplicities,
the Fact itself is one which admits of no question. I will concede, for
the sake of discussion, that some of the trichotomies which I have point-
ed out in the Apocalypse or in Job, may not stand the test of thorough
scrutiny, and that there is even something of the fanciful on my part in
them. Yet the most rigid scrutiny cannot detect anything of this na-
ture, in respect to the mass of them. They are so plain and palpable,
they lie so upon the very surface of the composition, that candour can do
no less than admit them.

The explanation or vindication of such a usage, both in the Old Tes-
tament and in the New, would be aside from our present object, which
is merely to exhibit an account of the actual form and arrangement of
the Apocalypse. That part of the subject which relates to the signifi-
cancy of the number three, and also of the other numbers which perform
a conspicuous part in the Apocalypse, must be reserved for the Com-
mentary on particular passages, and the Excursus connected with it.

(b) Heptades, or divisions by seven, in the Apocalypse.
Beyond all question, next after three the number seven makes the
most conspicuous figure in the book before us. I must therefore briefly
exhibit its use, by the writer of this book.

”

*

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 145

I. In the larger divisions of the work.

(a) In the prologue, the seven epistles to the seven churches. (0)
In the main body of the work; (1) The seven seals; the breaking 0
which corresponds to seven series of events, chap. v. seq. (2) The
seven trumpets, which grow out of the seventh seal; which correspo
to a like series of final events in the first, catastrophe, chap. viii. seq.
(8) In the second catastrophe we have the seven vials of the wrath of
God, corresponding to the like series of plagues. To the trumpets and
the vials are assigned seven angels, one respectively for each of them.
(c) The epilogue is too short to admit of heptades.

Il. In the smaller divisions of the work and particular groups of per-
sons or objects.

Chap. 1: 4, the seven spirits before the throne. This idea is repeated,
or asimilar one, in 4: 5. 5: 6. 8:2. 15:1, 6. 16:1. 17:1. In 5: 6, to the
Lamb are ascribed seven horns and seven eyes. Seven churches are
addressed in 1: 4, 11, and virtually in the inscriptions to the seven epis-
tles, ii. seq. Chap. 1: 12, seven lamps, and so in 4:5. In 1:16, seven
stars. In 5:12, seven attributives of God. In 6:15, seven classes of
persons. 7:12, (as before) seven attributives of God. 8:3, seven trum-
pets. 10: 3,4, seven thunders. 11:13, seven thousand men perish.
12: 3, the dragon has seven heads. 13:1, the beast with seven heads,
15: 8. 16: 1, seven angels with seven vials. 17:9, 10, seven heads sig-
nify seven mountains and seven kings. 18:13, seven groups of objects
here. 21:9, seven angels, seven vials, seven last plagues.

It will be seen by this view of the heptades in the Apocalypse, that,
although they act an important part, and are employed in the grouping
of the greatest events and of the most considerable actors and things,
yet, on the whole, they are greatly inferior in respect to their frequency
to the triads which we have already examined. One needs, moreover,
merely to take up a Concordance of the Old Testament, in order to
learn what a conspicuous part the number seven everywhere acts in the
Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of fulness or completion, designated by
seven symbolically employed, lies doubtless at the foundation of this
usage. But of this, more in another place.

Finally, as to the three and a half years, or its equivalent, forty-two
months or 1260 days, (11: 8, 9, 11. 12:6, 14. 18:5), they would
seem, at first view, to have their origin in the same period as developed
in the book of Daniel (7:25. 12:7) ; but in reality they probably are
derived from mere historical facts, rather than from any special sym-
bolical signification. I cannot regard them as employed tropically,
merely because they are the half of seven.

nd.

VOL. I. 19

146 § 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

(c) Tetrades, or groups of fours.

The larger divisions of the Apocalypse are not anywhere adjusted by

this number. It appears in but few cases, except in individual group-
ings. In three cases, however, it acts a part somewhat conspicuous ;
ji. e. in the subdivisions of the seven seals, and the trumpets, and
vials. As these sevens are subdivided into two groups of four and three,
in some important respects distinct from'each other, so the number four
is here concerned with a species of division in discourse. Elsewhere
four serves to denote an enlarged entirety of group. 'To explain the
ground of this symbolical meaning, belongs, as in the cases above, to
the sequel of this work.

The detail amounts to considerable. It first appears in the epexege-
sis of Zoya, in 2:19, viz. love, faith, ministry, patience. In 4:6. 19: 4,
four living creatures uphold the throne of divine Majesty. 5:9, tribe,
tongue, people, nation. 5:18, heaven, earth, underworld, sea—blessing,
honour, glory, power. 7: 1, four angels—four corners of the earth—four
winds. 7: 9, nation, tribe, people, tongue. 8:5, voices, thunder, light-
ning, earthquake. 8:7, 9, 10, 12, four trumpets affect earth, sea, rivers
and fountains of water, and the sky above. 10:11, prophesy before
people, nations, tongues, kings. 11:9, as in 7:9 above. 12:9, four
groups of names for Satan. 12:19, salvation, might, kingdom, author-
ity. 13:7, as in 7:9 above. 14:6, the same. 14:7, heaven, earth,
sea, fountains. 17:15, people, multitudes, nations, tongues. 17: 6, the
ten horns and the beast will do four things to the harlot. 18: 12, four
groups of Genitives following yéuwor—four of the like following oxevos.
18: 22, four classes of musicians. 21:8, four groups of evil-doers to be
punished.

That four or a tetrade is symbolical of enlarged completeness, can hard-
ly escape the notice of any one who attentively peruses the passages to
which reference has just been made. That this number was among the
favorite ones of the author, is sufficiently clear from the frequency with
which it is employed.

(d) Duodecades, or groups of twelve.

These are not very frequent; and the reason for their being employed,
im any case, seems to have an eyident relation to the twelve tribes of Is-
rael. E. g. the twelve times twelve thousand sealed on their foreheads,
7:4, So in 7: 5—8, the twelve thousand chosen out of each tribe. 14:
1, 3, mentions the same number. ‘With reference to the twelve tribes,
we find the new Jerusalem having twelve foundation-rows of precious
stones, with the twelve apostles’ names on them, 21:14. In 21: 16, the
compass of the new city is twelve thousand furlongs. 21: 21, the twelve
gates consist of twelve pearls. 22: 2, twelve fruit-harvests in a year.

ee .

§ 7, NUMEROSITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 147

(e) Decades, or groups of tens.

These are so few, that one can hardly put them to the account of spe-
cial design. E. g. 11:13, the tenth part of the city fell. 12:3, the
dragon with ten horns. 13:1, the beast with the same. The latter is
brought to view again, in 17:12, 16. In both cases, the model is to be
found in Dan. 7:7 seq.

That ten is employed as a large, round, and dbapnets number, having
a peculiar roundness and significancy among all the groups of numbers,
is sufficiently plain. The idea which it conveys, with its significancy
as symbol, seems to have been taken from the divisions of the hands
and feet. We might perhaps say, that it is apparently employed in the
Apocalypse for the sake of variety in symbol, rather than from n any ne-
cessity.

(f) Parallelisms of the Apocalypse.

There remains only one topic more of this nature ; and this has re-
spect to the duads, i. e. the dioziyor or bimembral divisions of the Apoc-
alypse. ;
Every one acquainted with Hebrew poetry, knows well that paral-
lelism or bimembral divisions constitute its most prominent feature.
Next to this stand lofty, select, figurative language, firequency of meta-
phor, and allegorical representations. I will not say, that the diction
in the Apocalypse is in general as lofty and select as that of Isaiah ; but
I may truly say, that in frequency of metaphorical and figurative ex-
pression, and in the use of symbols, it exceeds any and all of the He-
brew prophets. The world of imagery in which it lives and moyes, has
no complete parallel in the Scriptures.

Its poetic element, therefore, will not be disputed. But as to its
form—it has not indeed any claim to the feet or measure of heroic
verse in the Greek or Roman classics. But it has everywhere more or
less of the Hebrew parallelism thrown into its sentences. The writer,
however, does not seem to have aimed at this, as a special object to
which he had directed peculiar attention. Asa Hebrew, and thoroughly
imbued as he certainly was with a knowledge of the Hebrew prophets,
(who for the most part are also poets), he has fallen, times without num-
ber, into a rythmus like that which they exhibit.

I pass by the seven epistles in the prologue to the book, because,
although many parallelisms might ‘easily be produced from them, yet
this species of writing does not so naturally demand rythmus, as the
main body of the work. The first opening of the latter affords speci-
mens of John’s usual manner. Chap. 4: 2 seq. runs thus:

-

148

§ 7. NUMEROSITY OF THE r=

And straightway I was in the spirit,

And lo! athrone was set in heaven,

And one was sitting upon the throne,

And he who sat resembled a jasper and a sardius,
And a rainbow round the throne was like an emerald,
And round the throne were four and twenty thrones,
And on the thrones sat four and twenty elders,
Being girt around with vestures of white,

; And on their heads were golden crowns.
So again in t ingle the first prelude :

And i. « a new song, saying :

Worthy art thou to take the book and open its seals,

For thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood,
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

And hast made us kings and priests to God,

And we shall reign upon the earth.

In the description of the 144,000, who had been sealed, 7: 14 seq.,

we find the following passage :

These are they who come out of great distress,

Who have washed and cleansed their robes in the Lamb’s blood.
Because of this they are before God’s throne,

And day and night they serve him in his temple,

And he who sitteth on the throne will pitch his tent over them,
They shall not bunger, neither shall they thirst,

Nor sun nor burning heat shall fall upon them,

For the Lamb on the midst of the throne shall feed them,

He shall lead them to fountains of living water,

% And God shall wipe all teajgmpor off their eyes.

“$0 in 11: 17 seq.

We thank thee Lord God almighty, who art and wast,

That thou hast taken f) hty power and dost reign,

The nations indeed were angry, but thine anger came,

The appointed time for the dead, to judge, and give reward

To thy servants, the prophets and the saints,

To those who fear thy name, both small and great, .

And to destroy those who lay waste the land. é s,
*

One more passage must suffice, 18: 4 seq.

Come out of her, my people, =

That ye may not be made partakers of her si

Nor receive the plagues inflicted on her.

Give to her as she hath rendered to others ;

As her works sare double her double portion ;

As much as she put on splendour and been luxurious,
So much of torment and of mourningsaive her ;

For in her heart she saith :

§ 7. NUTR AQSTET OF THE APOCALYPSE. 149

I sit as queen, and am no widow, -

And never shall [ see mourning.

Because of this, one day her plagues shall come upon her,
Death and mourning and pestilence,

And she with fire shall be entirely burned,

For the Lord God who judgeth her is mighty.

The reader will call to mind, that I have not said that the parallelism
here, and elsewhere in the Apocalypse, is altogether of the same per-
fect nature as, that in Isaiah, Job, and of the Psalms. But it is
not much removed from that of orn the prop hets. It is not,
moreover, synonymous parallelism; at most, it is a rarely so; yet
neither is this essential to Hebrew poetry. That there is akind of
rythmus in the structure of the sentences as above produced, no one
will venture to deny; and what is true of the specimens produced, is
equally true of a multitude of other passages in the Apocalypse. It
were easy to swell the number of extracts; but I forbear. I can only
assure the reader, that I have taken the specimens above quite at ran-
dom, and that he will find the like almost anywhere, in nearly all parts
of the book.

This is Just what we should naturally expect. John wrote in Greek ;
and poetry, in the usual acceptation of the word in that language, de-
manded metre. But this was not compatible with his purpose. Nor is
it very likely he would strive, while writing in Greek, after a close and
exact imitation of the Hebrew poets. He has chosen a medium. He
has given us prose, indeed, in respect to form or costume, but prose in-
stinct with all the qualities of poetry.

55 es,
(g) General Remarks on the numerosity of the Apocalypse. ol ail

If the preceding exhibition of this subject is correct and accordant
with the real state of facts, some i ant consequences as to inter-
pretation stand connected with it. Above all, the trichotomy of the
Apocalypse stands preeminent in this respect. It settles the question
whether there is more than one catastrophe in the book. This is a
Sa question. It decides, moreover, in regard to subordinate parts of

ook which are of the like tenor, how fo they extend, and in man;
cases whether they sustain a near relation to each other. It extends
itself to the interpunction of very many passages, deciding how the
writer. grouped them in his own mind, and how we also should group
them, and consequently. how we ld distribute the interpunction. E. g.
in 12: 18, the usual printing is thus : Sovvee puodov toig dovios o0v, TOUS
moogpirots nul TOIS KyioLS xO TOIS poBovusvors TO OVOUK GOV, TOIS [AI-
nooig xat toig wsyadoug. This is plainly wrong. There are two groups ~
of three each; the first is the generic toig Sovdog 0v, with the epexe-

ms

150 § 8. IS THE eile asus

getical or specific moopiraus and ayiow; the second is the generic zoi¢
poBovpevos. cd dvoue cov (corresponding plainly to zoi¢ dovdorg ov),
followed by the specific puxgoig and peycdowg. And so of not a few other
places in the book. In fact, the hasty reader, and even any one who
does not enter minutely upon the examination of the book, can scarcely
conjecture how much the smaller points of interpretation, as well as
not a few of the larger, are affected by the nwmerosity of the book.

That the numbers seven and four are also to be regarded in a similar
way, there can the developments made above. But
these do not in compare with the number three, in respect
to the frequency ath which they modify the Apocalypse.

I know of no writer who has paid any very particular attention to the
traits of numerosity in the Apocalypse except Ziillig. Not having seen
his work, as mentioned before, but only a copious review of it, I cannot a
go into particulars. His plan, however, is so widely discrepant from
mine, that I have profited little or nothing by the view of it which I
have seen. TZrichotomy, with him, scarcely acts any considerable part
in the arrangement; and all the work down to chap. xx, he refers to the
destruction of Jerusalem only. ‘The seven hills (17: 9) he finds in that
city ; the seven kings (17: 10) he also finds in Palestine ; and of three
catastrophes he knows nothing. I can only add here, that it is impossi-
ble for me to view the book in such a light as this.

I hope that I may, without subjecting myself to a charge of arrogance,
be permitted to say, that if the views above given respecting nwmeros-
ety are correct, then the study of the book, for the future, should be
carried on under auspices somewhat different from those which have
attended it. It is only an intimate knowledge of its relations,
he relative and mutual adjustment of all its parts, which can

ever lead to a true and satisfactory interpretation of the Apocalypse.

8
°

§ 8. Is the Apocalypse a Drama ?

This question properly belongs to the preceding category; but e-
fer to arrange it separately, in order to avoid any confusion thai
arise from intermingling too many topics. Licke has followed a r
. method, § 21.
Writers have not been wanting, who have ascrib the Apocalypse
a dramatic form; although I know nly one (Ek rn), who has se-

riously attempted to illustrate and defend this idea. The older-critics
and theologians paid but little attention to the rhetoric of the Apocalypse,
and seem not to’ have t t of labouring to vindicate it. Hence when

Oeder and Semler, of th last generation, assailed the book a ith great |) ih

violence, in ae its style, — pl d arrangeme credit

>

§8. 1s ee A DRAMA ? e 15t

of it, for a number of years, was very low on the continent of Europe,
until Herder and Eichhorn arose to vindicate its claims to respect and
even to admiration. This they did with all but complete success ; and
this, at a still earlier period, Bossuet had in a good measure done, with-
in the circle of the Romish church.

So far back as 1618, David Paraeus, in his Commentary on the Reve-
lation, says, that ‘from ch. iv. onwards a dramatic form predominates,
and that one would not be far out of the should he name the work
a drama propheticum. His vindicati ch a le is i
‘ The book exhibits,’ he says, ‘a constant change ession ac-
tors, and also interpositions of a chorus ; and in this way it discloses, by
virtue of various exhibitions, things yet to come, and imbues the minds
of the spectators with many important truths.’

“ But if this constitutes a drama, then several parts of Daniel, Zechariah,
: Ezekiel, and of other Hebrew prophets and lyrical poets, are dramas ;
a proposition, which no one would now seriously think of defending. A
drama exhibits things by scenze action, not by historic pictures of things

seen in vision, as is the case with the Apocalypse.

In 1782, Hartwig published his somewhat celebrated work, Apologie
der Apocalypse, in which. he avows the opinion, that the Apocalypse is
a drama. In order to vindicate this he says, that ‘a drama is a piece
which is full of action, where person follows person and scene succeeds
scene.’ He divides the whole book into five acts, limited by change of
place, and shifting of scenes and of actors. But he has not attempted
a formal vindication of this ; and his work appears to have made but a
slight impression in respect to the particular now before us.

In 1791, the celebrated Eichhorn published his Comment
Apocalypsin. In the preface to this he has introduced, nna
endeavoured to defend, the dramatic form of the Apocalypse. In 1811,
he published an Essay, De Judaeorum enicd (Commentt. Soc. Gott.
recent. I.), designed to vindicate his views, by showing that Herod the
Great and Herod Agrippa introduced theatrical representations at Jeru-
sal Cesaraea, and Berytus, and consequently that the Jews could not

n ignorant of dramatic compositions. In the same year, in his

tion to the New Testament ($188 seq.), he re-produced his»
views respecting the dramatic form of the Apocalypse, and strove at
length to i > He exhibits, as he is wont to do, not a little
of ingenuity and ce, in favour of his peculiar opinion ; which, as
is not unfrequently the case, seem have been the dearer to him, the
more it was neglected by others. I know of but one follower, who seems
everywhere to be his humble pedissequus, viz B. A. L. Matthai, in his

Erklirung der Offenbarung, 1828, Th. Il. S.2 ff.
4 : I. :

Nothi ore than a brief statement of Mithhogge views relative to

av

152 * § 8. I8 THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ?
P hs

the point before us, with a few remarks upon them, seems to be neces-
sary at the present time. He begins the proper drama with 4: 1, and
ends it with 21: 5. The leading parts of it he thus arranges: prelude,
4: 1—8:5; Act I. 8: 6—12: 17; Act IL, 12: 18—20: 10; Act IIL,
20: 11—21: 5. The prelude contains an exhibition and arrangement
of the stage or theatre of action. The first act relates the siege and
taking of Jerusalem, and the victory over Judaism; and it is divided
into three scenes, with two exodes. It ends with a description of the
feeble condition of the Jewish church. The second act exhibits the
downfall of Rome, and the victory of Christianity over Heathenism ; and
it has two scenes and several exodes.' The third act exhibits the new
Jerusalem and the everlasting happiness of a future life; with which is
connected the resurrection of the dead and a general judgment. The
epilogue consists of the last sixteen verses of the book, viz. 21: 6—21.

The argument adduced by Eichhorn to prove the dramatic character
of the Apocalypse, is very brief. It is, moreover, as unsatisfactory as
brief. He appeals to Aristotle (Poet. c. 6) for a definition, and he re-
presents him as saying, that “a drama is a series of events, out of which
happiness or misfortune springs.” Eichhorn, however, has not correctly
represented the entire views of the great master of definitions. Speak-
ing of tragedy, i. e. the drama, Aristotle says: “It is an imitation of
action, and is performed by certain actors,” (Poet. 6.5). Again: “ The
drama is... an imitation of action, and of life, and of good fortune, and
of misfortune,” (ib. 6.7). Once more: “ They [the tragic poets] do
not compose in order that they may imitate manners, but they form con-
ceptions of these in order that they may exhibit action; for action (za
mocyuaro) and mythus are the end of tragedy,” i. e. of the drama, (ib.).
According to Eichhorn’s representations of Aristotle’s definition, the
drama would embrace every history of events that is extant, i. e. pro-
vided such events were com (as all in fact are) with the prosperity
or adversity of men. Any historic representation of a series of actions,
ending in good or evil, would, in accordance with such views, of course
be a drama. Not so the Stagyrite. He says, ‘there can be no.
without six constituents, viz. fable, manners, words, though
song.’ The last of course includes the poetic nature of the piece. W
is set forth as reality in a drama, must, as we have seen above, be ¢mi-
tated by actors ; and this imitation is what is cal ow, in the division
above. Not that the actual show oe) is me 8 to the nature of
the piece, (for the actual show or exhibition does not depend on the
author of the drama), but that the composition in its very nature must
be of a cast which is designed for exhibition, or adapted to it; see
Arist. Poet. 6.11. »« >
Tere then vou our stand; and nan we may settle the question

a

ee

§ 8. Is oe A DRAMA ? * 153

at once. Was the Apocalypse written to be exhibited by actors on a
stage? Is it adapted for such an exhibition? Does it contain an imi-
tation’ of character, manners, or events, which is intended to be exhibi-
ted by emitation of actors? This is the distinctive feature of drama;
and without this, no other qualities can entitle a piece to this appella-
tion.

No proof is needed, (except it be to read the book), that the Apoca-
lypse cannot be ranked under this category. The writer merely relates
what he saw in vision. Even what he saw in vision was not oe,

e at some future

in many respects. Symbols of what was to take ple
period, i. e. pictorial sketches of what would take place, constitute the
frame-work of the Apocalypse. If a picture is a drama, then the Apoca-
lypse may possibly be called one; but not otherwise. The dialogue is
only so much as Thucydides, or Xenophon, or Livy, usually presents ;
it is a mere incidental matter, not a main constituent element of the
book. The Apocalypse is merely a narration or account of symbols
seen in a vision; it is not the imitation of life, and manners, and action,
by agents who are to appear upon the stage.

Eichhorn himself feels constrained to make so many exceptions to the
dramatical character of the Apocalypse, that he virtually exempts it
from this species of composition. ‘In drama,’ says he, ‘ things that have
taken place are represented, but in the Apocalypse, things future ; else-
where words are employed, but. here symbols; elsewhere the drama it-
self is presented for our perusal, here is only a description of a drama
that was seen ;’ Hinleit. ins N. Testament, § 188. Of what use then,
we may well ask, is it to insist on — an appellation as drama, gyhen
all the peculiar and characteristic qualities of this kind of composition
are wanting? Dialogue is wanting; living imitation by action is want-
ing; the presence and inspection of spectators is wanting ; the narration
of past occurrences is almost entirely wanting; and, in short, nothing
remains but the essential characteristics of all prophetic poetry, viz. fig-
ure, simile, symbol, and peculiar diction.

Nor is this strange whim of Eichhorn’s altogether harmless. He tasks
John with misconceptions and faults, because he has introduced some
things into his work which are inconsistent with the true nature of the
drama. For example: ‘ The seven epistles to the churches are a trans-
gression of this nature.- The account of the woman clothed with the
sun and stars, and of her teknogony, are an offence against the laws of
dramatic criticism ;’? Einleit. §190. And more than all this; an ar-
rangement of the whole composition in such a manner as to correspond
in any tolerable manner to the form of a dra: ust of necessity break

< “up many of the mutual relations of the piec substantially interfere
with its numerosity. But of this last quality, ia had no concep-

VOL. I. 20

134 * § 8. 18 THE APOCALYPSE A DRAMA ?

tion. He taxes John, indeed, with Cabbalism in respect to the seven
spirits, (1: 4); in regard to his description of the conqueror, (19: 12) ;
and in respect to the number of the beast, (13: 18); not one of which
passages, however, has he proved to have anything to do with real Cab-
balism. But his mind was of a peculiar cast. When it had seized any
conception, which seemed to bid fair to throw light on any dark pas-
sage of Scripture, he appears to have taken it for granted, that such
conception must have a good foundation, whether he could produce
vouchers for it or not. Hence it comes, perhaps, that his fame, once so
dominant in Germany, went down to the tomb, as one might almost say,
with the hand that penned his compositions. Recent criticism rarely
alludes to him, although in many respects it owes him much.

In a word, who that is versed in the history and eriticism of the Serip-
tures does not well know, that the Hebrews were utterly averse to the
study and imitation of foreign literature—specially of the Greek, which
had been forced in some measure upon them by Antiochus Epiphanes
and by the Roman power? ‘The two Herods did indeed introduce the
Greek drama into two or three cities in Palestine. But it was resorted to
mostly by foreigners, and was not frequently exhibited. The Jews,
(the heathenizing apostates only excepted), were utterly averse to for-
eign literature, and never instructed their children in it, except so far as.
conversation-language was concerned. Josephus was obliged to learn it
by stealth. Nothing short of the terror inspired by the Herods, could
cause their dramas to be attended by Jewish spectators. Is it possible
to suppose, with the remotest probability, that John would endeavour to
imitate the Greek drama, in a book which he had so formally introduced
and commended to the churches? ‘The very face of the matter decides
against it. And besides all this, down to the present hour the taste of
nearly all Asiatics, the colonies of Greece only excepted, has never adopt-
ed or relished dramatic compositions. The Arabians, the Persians, the
Turks, and others, all have their rhapsodists and their story-tellers, and
are greatly attached to the amusements afforded by them; but scenic
and dialogistie representations have never, to any extent, been adopted
by them.

Another error on the part of Eichhorn, and one of no small impor-
tance, stands connected with his dramatie view of the Apocalypse. It is
this, viz., that he everywhere considers the Revelation simply as a
mere literary production, which of course is arbitrary, and owes its ori-
gin simply to the imagination and fancy of the writer. This is decidedly
against all scriptural analogy. There is no other part of the New Tes-
tament, which does not obviously take its rise from the. necessities or
the welfare of the churches. Moved by one or both of these, the Evan-
gelists, Paul, Pega s, all come forward as writers. And does it

§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 155
&,

not lie upon the very face of the Apocalypse, from beginning to end,
that the distresses, persecutions, and dangers of the churches, urged, and
as it. were compelled, the author to write? With all the sublime visions
of the Apocalypse respecting the future, there is scarcely any sacred
book which is designed or adapted to have a more immediate, powerful,
and practical influence upon its readers. Zo him that overcometh, in
the great contest between the church and its persecutors, the crown of
triumph and of glory is everywhere held out. How then can we sup-
pose John to have sat down to a purely literary and imaginative effort,
like that of an author of a Greek drama? How could he think of com-
mending himself to his Hebrew-christian readers, or even to his Gen-
tile converts, by an attempt to entertain them with a production cast in
the mould of a heathen drama? Well may we say with Liicke, in re-
spect to this matter: “Everywhere [in the New Testament literature ]
it is reality, practical ends, which excite to composition; and the forms
of this are the usual and obvious ones, which strike our view at once.
All mere literary talent and acquisition is subordinate to the design of
edification, instruction, admonition. ... How could any one so entirely
mistake the nature of the apostolical age! [So mistake it as Eichhorn
has done]. Ata time when a whole world is born anew, amid a con-
test of hostile powers, something quite different from inventing new forms
of the drama occupies the mind. The views of Eichhorn, inasmuch as
they entirely disregard the historical condition of things, and utterly fail
to recognize the difference between ancient and modern times, cannot,
on this very account, be deemed correct.” Licke, Einl. § 21.

§9. Object of the book.

The general object has already been briefly stated, at the commence-
ment of this Introduction, §1. My present design is to explain more
fully and to defend the statement there made, and to pass in brief review
some of the leading schemes of interpretation which assign to the Apoca-
lypse a different object.

The final and complete triumph of Christianity over all opposition and
all enemies, and the temporal and eternal glory and happiness to which
this triumph leads the church, or still more briefly, as Liicke has stated
it, ‘the coming and completion of the. kingdom of God, is the generic
theme of the Revelation. To this grand central point all converges ;
for however numerous or diverse the subordinate parts of the book are,
they all sustain a relation more or less prominent to the main theme of
the work.

In making this statement, I refer merely o the grand theme itself of
the writer, and not to. the practical ends ° ch aie. had in

156 $9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE.

view. The practical object to be attained by writing the book, is easily
distinguishable from the theme of the writer. Indeed, the main object
to be attained, and the theme of the book, stand related to each other
as final end andmeans. The end sought for was, to encourage, console,
and admonish Christians suffering under bitter and bloody persecution,
and sorely tempted to apostatize or to act a timid and doubting part.
On every page of the book is this enstamped. From the commence-
ment of the proem down to the completion of the epilogue, all is filled
with promise and encouragement to those who are engaged in arduous
and bloody strife. The tree of life, the paradise of God, a crown of
glory, regal and priestly elevation and honour, an exemption from the
second death, a place and citizenship in the new Jerusalem, white rai-
ment, even the splendid dazzling costume of the upper world, the ex-
ternal presence of God, exemption from hunger and thirst and cold and
heat and sickness and mourning, the perpetual care of the great Shep-
herd who shall feed his sheep and lead them to fountains of living water,
eternal rest from all trials and struggles and grievances—rest in that
world where they need not sun nor moon, because the glory of God
lightens it and the Lamb is its splendour—these, and the like, are the
objects of promise to the faithful combatant in the army of martyrs,
which are everywhere proffered in the Apocalypse. , How insignificant
in comparison with these, are the laurels and crowns which applauding
nations can bestow, or all the fleeting glories and honours which the
world itself could proffer !

Of the practical end to be attained, hielo, there is no room for
doubt. I do not say that the writer had no other end i tiew but the
single one that has been stated. Which of all the sacred writers has
written a book as long, without designing to accomplish several pur-
poses? But in the Apocalypse, as in the Gospels and in several of
Paul’s epistles, there is one main purpose that runs through the whole,
and modifies it, and makes everything subordinate to its leading design.
All the hortatory and monitory passages of the Revelation are true to
this main design, and stamp the book with an inscription which is abso-
lutely indelible.

Licke (§ 25) seems to call in question this view of the book. He
avers, that deiScu zoig Sovdoig ‘Ijood Xeuozov & Set person év cayer, 1:1,
comp. 22: 6, proposes and adverts to ¢nstruction respecting the coming
and kingdom of Christ as a leading purpose. And beyond all doubt, such
instruction is the object of the main theme in itself considered. But why
was any theme chosen? Why did the writer engage at all in the com-
position of the book? This admits of no other answer that accords
with the practical tenor of the book, than the one which has already
been given; and I call that the chief end of a book, to accomplish which

*

§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 157

the author was principally moved to write it. Ina word, it seems plain
to me, from the whole tenor of the Apocalypse, that the writer chose
for his theme the certain triumph of Christianity over all its enemies,
and the glorious consummation of the struggle with the powers of dark-
ness, because this theme, above all which could be chosen, was best adapt-
,ed to the purposes which the author had in view. It is a truly magnifi-
cent and soul-stirring theme. To do it justice, so as to make it impres-
sive in the measure which John desired, he must expand and adorn it,
he must present not a mere outline but a finished picture. Jnstruction
is of course the necessary result. What could there be of substantiality
and importance in the book, if it gave no instruction? The more of
this, the more certain the author must be of fully and rationally accom-
plishing its design. The theme then may be very instructive, and yet
be chosen for a then present and urgent practical purpose. 3

When I speak of a purpose then immediately in view by the writer,
Ido not mean to be understood as saying, that the book was adapted
only to the main and immediate purpose for which it was composed.
Like the Epistles to the Corinthians, or the Gospel of Luke, it was call-
ed into being by the exigencies of the times. But like them, also, it is
replete with instruction for all ages of the church, so long as any cir-
cumstances exist which resemble those that occasioned the composition
of it. Manente ratione, manet ipsa lex. So long as Christians have to
struggle against the world and the powers of darkness, so long the views
and admonitions and promises of the Apocalypse are needed. Indeed,
I cannot well believe that minds as enlightened as were those of the
apostles and writers of the New Testament, could ever suppose that the
writings which they produced were limited, in their influence and use-
fulness, merely to the generation in which they lived. Well may we
take the position, that while the main and original object of the Apoca-
lypse was to meet the exigencies of the time in which it was written,
and while the theme was peculiarly adapted to the accomplishment of
this end, still, a book duly composed in such circumstances and in order
to meet actual wants and woes, must present more or less which will
always be useful at every period of the world. The great combat with
sin, in some form or other, is never to cease while the probation of man
continues. Of course, then, the Apocalypse will always afford matter
of admonition and encouragement to Christians.

The view which has now been given of the original and main design
of the Apocalypse, and of the theme which was chosen by the writer
for the accomplishment of this design, is more important than most
readers may be prepared to consider it. The leading direction which
must be given to the exegesis of the book depends upon it, and several
questions of a critical nature, which are highly important, stand connected

158 § 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE.

with it. To adduce the evidences that the view in question is correct,
would be to recapitulate the whole contents of the Apocalypse. I
cannot at present occupy my own time, or that of the reader, with do-
ing this. I must content myself with simply saying, that the careful
perusal of the book, independently of any theory of interpretation,
first gave to me this view, and that this has been more and more con-
firmed by all subsequent study of it. I must request the reader who
has doubts in respect to it, to apply himself to the simple and contin-
uous perusal of the book, in order to ascertain what was the main and
immediate object of the writer. I anticipate with confidence, that he
will come to the same result to which I have come.

How much the object now before us has been overlooked by the older
commentators, needs no other evidence than the study of them. Let us
select the most favourite and popular stand-point of many theologians
and critics, and fora moment examineit. They assumed, that the great
object of John was to give an outline of church history down to the end
of the world. With this, of course, is intermingled a great deal of civil
history—the revolutions and changes of states and empires. The conse-
quence has been, that we are said to have, according to the various views
of expositors, either the history of the Jews and of the Romans in more
ancient times; or the history of Rome during the decline and fall of
the Roman empire; or the history of the middle ages principally, spe-—
cially of the rise and spread of popery, with its persecutions and its
idolatry ; or, as others will, we have also the history of the Reformation,
of the various corruptions of the church by heretics, of the Roman
Catholic orders of monks, of the persecutions excited by them, of the
decline of the papal hierarchy with its final overthrow, and of the ulti-
mate triumph of pure Christianity over all error and opposition. Ac-
cording to some expositors, even the petty monarchies of modern Eu-
rope, and not a little of their individual history, is sketched out by John
in the Apocalypse, and many of the comparatively insignificant sects of
modern and even recent heretics are described. To views which are sub-
stantially these, or like to these, no less men than even Joseph Mede
and Campegius Vintringa have acceded. What might not be expected,
then, from men who seldom thought or examined for themselves !

_In respect to every attempt of this sort at expounding the great design
of the Apocalypse, much of doubt and difficulty must now arise in the
mind of a serious and candid inquirer, when he is once put upon the
track of simple historico-eritical exegesis—along which track the science
of interpretation now bids us to move. Readily will such an one be
inclined to ask: What analogy is there in all the Scriptures for such a
method of prophecy? Rarely are very distant future events made the
subject of prediction—never, unless indeed they stand closely connected

§9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 159

with the welfare of God’s chosen people. Almost everything that is
remote, is, in the Old Testament, brought to view merely because it has
some relation to Christ or his kingdom. And even here how brief, how
general, how destitute of individual specification and minuteness, are
all predictions of this nature! If the reader doubts this for a moment,
Imust beg him to go back, and reperuse § 2. of this Introduction.
There can be no appeal from a pragmatic view of this subject; and
such an one is there given.

Well may the candid reader also ask : What is the object of the Scrip-
tures? Civil history or religious? If any one should say: ‘ We have
such history in the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles ;
the answer would not be difficult. Is anything more plainly enstamped
on the face of all these and the like books, than that they are mainly
the religious, and not merely the civil, history of the Hebrews? They
are a species of preaching by facts; while the prophecies (so called)
assume almost the usual form of homilies. When the future is at all
disclosed by the Hebrew prophets, it is for the sake of warning and ad-
monition, of rousing hope or exciting fear; and all this, not in a merely
civil, but mainly in a religious respect.

What inducement, now, could John have to disclose by prediction, the
ecclesiastical history of the churches in distant ages? Was this meeting
the wants, or alleviating the woes, or exciting the hopes of the church,
then bleeding at every pore under the monster Nero—merely to furnish
them with an abstract of the history of Popes and Jesuits, who would
live more than a thousand years after they were dead? And what con-
solation could it be to the agonizing Christians of Nero’s day, to know
that ecclesiastical Rome and her adherents in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries would become corrupt beyond all example, and haughty also, and
blood-thirsty, while true religion would be nearly extinguished? This
seems to be very ill-adapted to console the oppressed and anxious
Christian of the primitive times, who was fearful lest the light of salva-
tion might be extinguished by the blood of the martyrs.

In whatever light I view such a scheme of explanation or exegesis
of the main design of the Apocalypse, I am constrained to think it un-
grounded and improbable. It is not probable, that it was any object
with the holy prophets to gratify mere prurient curiosity about future
historic events—events connected only with civil or ecclesiastical his-
tory. What really useful purpose could this subserve? I cannot—I
must not—regard the Apocalypse as in effect nothing more than a mere
Syllabus of History. Often have we heard it reiterated: ‘ Is it proba-
ble, that God would leave his church without a knowledge of what was
to happen to it in future? To this question I should answer No, in one
respect, and Yes, in another. God has not left his church without a

160 § 9, OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE.

vivid representation of its future and certain and universal triumph and
sway. This rests on foundations as firm as those of the throne of God
and the kingdom of his grace. The Apocalypse as it now is, interpre-
ted in the manner which has been above proposed, speaks all this in
language not to be misunderstood. Thus much, then, as to all that can
cheer and encourage Christians. But on the other hand, of what moral
use would it be, to gratify a prurient curiosity about all the minute events
connected with the history of the church down to the end of time? In-
deed, it would be necessary to write ten thousand Apocalypses at least,
in order to present us in reality with such a history. But what would
these contribute towards moral suasion or religious impression and ad-
monition? Nothing—yea, less than nothing; for it would be an intol-
erable burden to the Christian church, to make or to print even an ab-
stract of them. It is indeed a degradation of the book of Revelation,
to turn it into a syllabus of mere worldly history.

The day has past by, as I would fain hope and trust, in which all at-
tempts to explain ancient writings, without regard to the circumstances
of the author, or of his friends, of the times in which he wrote, and of
the special object that induced him to write, can meet with extensive
approbation or encouragement. All other books, the Old Testament
and most of the New not excepted, are explained in this way. Why.
should the Apocalypse be treated as an exception to all other writings
in the world? f

If now, in addition to all this, we take into view the fact, that the
Revelation may be explained to much greater advantage, and much
more in consonance with the laws of exegesis and with the understand-
ing and reason of mankind, provided we give due attention to the cir-
cumstances and condition of the writer and of his fellow Christians, how
can we hesitate as to which of the methods of interpretation before us is
to be chosen? Doubt, in this case, would spread corresponding doubt
and darkness over the whole Bible, provided the expositor were consis-
tent with himself.in the application of such principles.

However confident, therefore, any particular persons may be in apply-
ing the symbols of the Apocalypse to distant events of church-history,
yet the time has passed by, in which confidence can be reposed by really
enlightened interpreters, who make this book an object of attentive
study, in merely imaginative and ever floating exegesis. Where is one
spot of terra firma in its whole domain? No two expositors belong-
ing to this class agree, unless where one is a mere satellite of another.
And why not? Because their method of interpretation depends on
mere fancy, imagination, conjectural resemblances, or perhaps sectarian
views, and other such things, and therefore can neither secure unity nor
command respect. Witness the volumes without number of prophetical

§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 161

or theological romances that have already been poured forth, under the
excitement and guidance of such views as I have now been characteriz-
ing. It is time—high time—for principle to take the place of fancy,
for exegetical proof to thrust out assumption, and for all men to call to
mind, that the apostles did not occupy themselves with writing conun-
drums and charades. They wrote to be read and understood by those to
whom they addressed themselves; and if they were understood, it was
by virtue of explaining their writings in a manner which accorded with
the usual laws and principles of exegesis. These never could have
given birth to a scheme of interpretation, which divests the Apocalypse
of all present and proper regard to the churches, clothed as they then
were in sackcloth, groaning under oppression, and often bathed in their
own blood. To forget all this, and to engage oneself in the leisurely
and fanciful employment of sketching traits of historical events in dis-
tant future ages, and many of these merely civil events—is not appro-
priate work for the illustrious exile wandering on the barren and sea-
girt rocks of Patmos.

Not much better than this have those interpreters done, who have
found in the Apocalypse little else but the Roman conquest of Judea and
Jerusalem, excepting the final erection of a new and spiritual kingdom.
So Hartwig, in his famous Apologie der Offenbarung. — So, for substance,
Herder in his Maran Atha ; so, in a large measure, Wetstein; and so,
fully, Zullig in his recent work. Others of less note have done the
same. Yet nothing less than absolute violence can make Rev. xii—xix.
relate to Judea and Jerusalem. The great mass of commentators have
regarded, and do still regard, such an exegesis as impossible.

On the other hand, there are not wanting those who regard John as
having been altogether partial to the Jews, and as purposely exempting
Jerusalem from anything more than temporary and moderate chastise-
ment. Of this class is Ewald in his Commentary; and here, in some
good measure, seem also to be found De Wette and Bleek. Heathen
Rome and its adherents are, with this class of critics, the great object of
the Apocalypse. But how can one well doubt, after reading chap. vii.
which shows what portion of the Jews are to be exempted from punish-
ment, and chap. xi. (specially v. 8) which shows, too specifically to ad-
mit of being explained away, that Jerusalem is to fall—how can he doubt,
that the persecuting Jews are the objects of the prophetic threatening ?
Let him moreover read Matt. xxiv, and then consider the striking sim-
ilarity between the tenor of this and that of Rev. vi—xi.; and to all
this let him add the consideration, that no reference to Rome, at least
none that can be rendered probable, is to be found in the first eleven
chapters of the Apocalypse; and then I do not see how he can in any
way render it probable, that merely heathen persecutors are the subjects

VOL. I. 21

162 § 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE.

of consideration and of commination in the Apocalypse. The principal
support of such an opinion is, that the Apocalyptist has not as fully and.
plainly announced the destruction of Jerusalem in chap. xi, as he has
that of great Babylon in chap. xvi. xix. The fact, that it is less fully
and prominently announced, must indeed be conceded. But still, that
it is announced, and moreover that the very plan of the work necessa-
rily demands that it should be considered as taking place, I cannot, after
the most attentive and often repeated consideration of the subject, see
any good reason to doubt. But the special arguments in favour of this
position must be reserved for detail in the commentary.

While I entertain a distinct and vivid apprehension, that Judaism
and Heathenism are both brought upon the scene of action as the great
antagonists of Christianity, yet I cannot, after all, subscribe to the
statement of Eichhorn and many of his followers, viz. that “the fanda-
mental idea of the Apocalypse is, the victory of Christianity over Juda-
ism and Heathenism, and the establishment of the subsequent kingdom
of the Blessed;” Einleit. $187. This statement is too abstract and
merely theoretical, in the first place ; and in the second, it is defective
in some important respects. It is not simply and merely the ultimate
predominance of Christianity over all its enemies, or rather over Jewish
and Roman power, which is held up to view. It is Christianity as strug-
gling first, and for a long time, with bitter Jewish enemies, who are in
various ways weakened and ultimately destroyed; then it is Christianity
struggling with the tremendous Roman power which governed the world
—yea carrying on a death-struggle for a long time and with agonies of-
ten repeated—until finally victory lights upon the standard of the cross ;
it is Christianity not in the abstract (so to speak), but in the conerete,
which John presents and holds up to our view, while she is bathed in
blood and wrapped in flames, and finally comes out from all like gold
from the fiery furnace.

Nor is this all. Eichhorn has entirely failed to discern the trichotomy
of the book. The two great enemies which he recognizes, are surely
not the only ones with which Christianity is called to contend. After a
long season of peace, prosperity, and wide diffusion, new enemies rise
up, and league together against her. The hosts of Gog and Magog,
from the ends of the earth and in numbers like the sands of the sea,
assemble and march against the holy metropolis of Christianity. Hea-
ven arrests them ere they have stricken any fatal blow, and they perish
in a summary and awful manner. Gog and Magog are an enemy and
an empire different from the Roman ; and this view involves the idea of
an opposition differing if some of its characteristics from either of the
others. But, being in the distant future, it is merely sketched and not
dwelt upon; the apocalyptic view in this case being very brief, like all
other prophecies of a similar nature.

§ 9. OBJECT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 163

It is thus, that. Christianity is presented not merely as struggling and
triumphant, but as struggling at different periods for a long succession of
time, and never fully and fini victorious until Satan is remitted to his
perpetual prison. It is, as the apostle Paul said of himself, Christianity
“made a spectacle to angels and men,” in a great variety of attitudes,
and passing through trials and dangers which seem not only to threaten
it, but to have the power of deatboyiig it. No hero of any epic poem
is anywhere presented on a theatre of such intense and long-continued
and agonizing action. But victory and a crown of unfading glory is
awarded, at last, by the King of kings and Lord of lords. No other
Epic can lay claim to higher, more intense, more varied, more constant,
more perilous, and finally to more successful action, than the Apocalypse
assigns to Christianity.

All this is so plain, and lies so upon the very face of the Revelation,
that it would have been seen and acknowledged ages ago, had not a
deep and all-pervading mystical exegesis led astray the Christian pub-
lic. If, (as was deemed not only allowable but expedient), the mystical
interpretation might be applied to the simple narratives and parables of
the Gospels, and to the Epistles of Paul and others, surely it might with
ten-fold reason be applied to a book so veiled and mysterious as the
Apocalypse seemed to be. The very form and nature of the book help-
ed to give currency and authority to such views; and of course the
Apocalypse has been, in almost every age, as it were a mass of wax
mouldable at the will and fancy of every one who undertook to shape it.
The recent vindications of the claims of simple and artless exegesis, how-
ever, have gradually been producing their legitimate effect on the inter-
pretation of this book, and, as at least it is to be hoped, faney-work and
conceit and visionary speculation have had their day, and are not much
longer to exercise their mischievous power. ‘The Apocalypse is to be
judged of in like manner as any other symbolic Epopee. Poetry is to
be considered as poetry, and symbol as symbol; unity of design is to
be expected and sought for; and such a view of the book is to be taken,
as has a basis in the persuasion, that it was written for a then present
and important exigency, which existed when the author engaged in his
work. Like every other writer, John must be judged of in a sober and
rational way, and with constant reference to his intention, his circum-
stances, his idiom, and his primitive readers. From a judgment formed
in this way, the author of the book need not, if he were now living, feel
disposed to shrink. It cannot be otherwise than highly honourable to
his plan and designs, and also to his powers of execution.

164 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

§ 10. Economy of the Apocalypse, or manner in which the plan 18
developed.

Much that belongs here has already been said, in disclosing the pecu-
liar forms of the book which result from its nwmerosity ; see § 7, partic-
ularly (a) seq. But before we proceed to the particular consideration
of the subject indicated by the inscription above, it may be proper to
say a word in respect to those, who regard the Apocalypse as being pro-
perly exempt from all investigation and criticism, which is of such a
nature as the inscription necessarily implies that stands at the head of
the present section.

Writers have not been wanting, and individuals are not still wanting,
who object to all critical and rhetorical analysis of the book before us, be-
cause tt ts a book divinely inspired. Kleuker (no mean critic, by the
way), says, in his defence of the Apocalypse against the theory of Eich-
horn, who regarded this book as a mere work of genius and fancy, that
‘we are not to bring invention and art into the account of its composition,
but rather an involuntary inspiration, which is independent of art, and
implies that the seer is transported out of himself;’? (Ursprung und
Zweck der Offenb. § 841). Hence he concludes, that the theory of Eich-
horn is destitute of any solid basis, and that we are not to seek for the
application of any of the rules of art to a book of such a character. Nor
does Kleuker stand alone in entertaining such views. There have been
and now are some, who consider it as a kind of profanation to subject
any scriptural book to a logical or rhetorical analysis.

What shall we say, then, to views like these? So far as Eichhorn
is concerned, I should entirely agree with Kleuker in rejecting his su-
perficial view of the Apocalypse, and the ranking of it among works of
mere fancy and imagination. But to maintain that the book has no
plan, and no method in which that plan is carried into execution, be-
cause it is of divine origin, would be a most extravagant and incredible
paradox. Did not God make the human mind? Has he not enstamp-
ed upon it the laws of logic and rhetoric, so that, in its higher develop-
ments, those laws are necessarily as well as spontaneously obeyed? And
if God thus reveals himself 7 man who is made in his own image, will
he have no regard to all this in an external revelation? Does the want
of logic and rhetoric prove anything to be of divine origin? If not, then
the presence of them will not disprove the inspiration of the sacred
writers.

So far, moreover, as rhetorical development and the laws of aesthe-
tics are concerned, what rational man has been able to show, that bishop
Lowth’s noble work on Hebrew poetry is to be cast away, because he

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 165

has laboured to show the rhetorical and aesthetical beauties of the Old
Testament poetry, and the art which is exhibited in the composition of
it? Is not poetry in its very nature an art? Are not its measure, and
rhythm, and parallelism, and peculiar idiom, and appropriate choice of
diction, connected with art? And as to nearly one half of all the Old
Testament—is it not poetry ?

But what shall we say to the alphabetic Psalms, specially the 119th ;
to the alphabetic book of Lamentations; to the like composition in
Prov. xxxi.? And even in the New Testament, what is to be said to
Matthew’s genealogy, where fourteens are artificially made, by the omis-
sion of many links in the chain of ancestors? What can we say to
these and the like exhibitions in the Scriptures, except that when God
speaks to men, he speaks more humano? He certainly speaks by men,
to men, and for men. He speaks then so as to be understood; and of
course, the sacred writers employ language as others do, else they could
not be understood. Is it any derogation from the dignity and useful-
ness of the sacred writings, that they exhibit a great variety of compo-
sition, adapted to different tastes and capacities? On the contrary, is it
not a striking evidence of God’s paternal kindness and condescension,
that he has adapted his instructions to all classes of men, who are to be
benefited by them ?

If now alphabetic compositions, adapted to help the memory of learn-
ers, have found their way into the Bible, and even a whole book of
Lamentations has taken such a form from the taste of the author or of
the age, why should the numerosity of the book of Job, or of the Apoc-
alypse, be objected to the composition? It is certain, that numbers are
higher symbols, and more expressive, than mere alphabetic sequency of
words or of oziyou. . It is even certain, that trichotomy has something in
its very nature which is pleasing, and adapted to arrest our attention.
Do not the latest and most popular schemes of philosophy itself resolve
themselves into a basis which implies trichotomy ?

But whether we consent or deny, in respect to this matter, changes
not, and cannot change, the state of fact. The fact is before every
reader’s eyes; and he might as well deny that the sun shines in a mid-
day serene sky, as to deny that numerosity and alphabetic composition
belong to a part of the sacred books.

Here then is art; not in the bad, but in the good sense of this word.
And if this be so, then we may investigate it, point it out, make it
known to readers, and call their attention to it. The sacred books were
composed in order to be read, studied, closely and thoroughly investi-
gated; and the more this is done, to the more advantage will they ap-

ear.

Of all the theories respecting inspiration that have been broached, |

166 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

know of none which appears to me further from the truth, than that
which makes the sacred writers mere automata, moved not at all by
their own power or choice, but by an irresistible power which super-
sedes the use of their own faculties. To affirm, as a well known writer
who now figures upon the stage in Germany has done, that “when the
Spirit of God comes in, the soul of man goes out,” is to affirm that
soulless and rationless beings are more appropriate instruments of teach-
ing, than beings fully possessing souls and enlightened reason. It is
impossible to make the mass of thinking men, at the present time, be-
lieve in extravagances like this.

There is as much variety and difference, both in manner and matter,
among the sacred writings, as among Greek, Roman, or English clas-
sics. There is every possible evidence of variety of taste and talent
displayed in the works of scriptural writers. If any one should say that
Haggai or Malachi are on a par in aesthetics with Isaiah and Habakkuk,
am I to distrust my senses, my understanding, and my taste, in such a
manner as to believe this? Nothing demands such a distrust; and
even if I would exercise it, the laws of my nature forbid it, when I
read these books. Yet the actual instruction conveyed by the one or
the other, is equally authentic and credible. It is only the rhetorical or
aesthetical character of the books, which is so exceedingly diverse.

But where are we now? These differences in the style of different
authors do actually exist ; artificial modes of composition, moreover, lie
before us in full view; all the varieties of style which different tastes
and talents of men give rise to, are undeniable predicates of the sacred
books. And why should we not notice and examine these and the like
facts? Why should we not point out characteristics which lie either
upon the face of the scriptural compositions, or which are more covertly
interwoven with the very texture of them, and need to be patiently and
carefully investigated? God has not derogated from the authority or
dignity of his communications, by giving them an aesthetical character
which is varied so as to allure all ranks and conditions of men. He
has spoken to children as children; to full grown men as such. The
Apocalypse, it cannot be doubted, is adapted rote due cyy Ew te aio-
Iyryjove yeyyurcoure Exovor moog Suexowow xahod rE xcet xoexod. There
is elsewhere milk for babes; but the Revelation is doubtless “meat for
full grown men.” Does the book lose any of its value on this account ?
Far from it. Does not the great apostle to the Gentiles tell us, that he
preached cogiar éy cots zeheiorg, while he refrained from so doing among
others who had made but little progress in the knowledge of divine
things? 1 Cor.ii. What he did in preaching other teachers might do
in writing. And if they have done it, (as surely they have), then we
may investigate any such writing, and point out its method, its logic, its
aesthetics, and in a word its whole literary character.

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 167

To sean the book by the mere technical rules of the logic or rhetoric
of the schools, would not, I readily acknowledge, be an appropriate ex-
ercise of criticism. It is not to be thus examined or judged of. Still
the Apocalypse is a composition which follows some laws of the human
mind. It would not be intelligible at all, if it did not; and if it does,
it is the proper office of criticism to point out what laws it has followed,
and how far they may compare with the laws of composition as pre-
scribed by the schools. Our reception or rejection of the book as au-
thentic in matters of doctrine and duty, does not depend on the results of
such an investigation. Not that I think the Apocalypse has anything
to fear from such a scrutiny ; but be this as it may, the duty of a critic
to analyze and explain the structure and continuity of ary sacred book,
is none the less because it is sacred. I may well repeat here what I
have already said above. When God speaks to men, he speaks more
humano. What bids us, then, to refrain from examining the plan and
economy of the Apocalypse, provided we do it with candour, with
sober scrutiny, and with that high respect which the nature of the work
and the character of its author demands? ‘To examine for the mere
purpose of condemning or carping, is a very different matter from ex-
amining for the purpose of acquiring instruction.

My examination of the Apocalypse has ended in the conviction, that
this book has the same claims, or as well-grounded claims, to be consid-
ered as the result of inspiration, as. the other books of the New Testa-
ment. Its object, aim, and even the manner of its execution, will bear
comparison with any other work of the New Dispensation. If any are
surprised at.a declaration like this, I can only say here, that I hope
fully to justify such a conclusion, before I have done with the examina-
tion of the work.. But I do not apprehend that inspiration whatever
aid it gave a writer in the way of illumination and guidance, changed
the peculiarities of that writer's style, or hindered the full and proper
exercise of his logical and rhetorical powers. The result of all my re-
searches into the nature of inspiration, is a full belief that its influence
is rather to be considered as resulting in a state than in an act. What
I mean is, that by inspiration the state or condition of him who is the
subject of it is affected ; his mind is enlightened respecting things proper
to be said, of which he was before totally or partially ignorant; his
views and affections are elevated ; his powers of mind are in a degree
quickened and heightened ; things sensual and deluding and degrading
recede, and for the time being cease to annoy him; and his judgment,
as to what he is to communicate, becomes not only more discerning, but
more sound and safe. The cnspired John, for example, is the same in-
dividual as the wninspired John, and retains all the innocent peculiari-
ties of his character and habitudes; but the inspired John is elevated,

168 $10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

enlightened, quickened, keen of discernment even to such a degree that
future things can be seen from his elevated condition, and he is so guid-
ed by all the combinations of influence upon him that he will communi-
cate nothing but truth. Were I to choose a simile for illustration, I
should say, that the inspired man ascends an intellectual and moral emi-
nence so high, that his prospect widens almost without bounds, and what
is altogether hidden from ordinary men is more or less distinctly within
his view.

Such, in my view, is the state of a sacred writer, when he takes up
his pen for the instruction of the church. In this state, we may of
course expect from him truth, and nothing but truth. But in communi-
cating this, he does not lose his own proper characteristics either of
feeling or of style. Enough that he is guarded from error, that truths
beyond the reach of his natural powers are impressed upon his mind, and
that, in this state, each writer preserves and exhibits all the peculiari-
ties that naturally belong to him. One needs but to compare Paul and
John, Isaiah and Malachi, in order to feel that this, or something very
much like it, must be true. And if this be conceded, then it follows,
that whatever be the agency of the Spirit upon an inspired man, he is
still as really and truly a free agent in his inspired state as he was be-
fore. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” And more
exactly to our purpose still: “ The spirits of the prophets are subject to
the prophets,” 1 Cor. 14: 32. If so, then “the soul of man has [not]
gone out, when the Spirit of God comes in.” The diversities of style
and plan, throughout all the Scriptures, is evidence which cannot be set
aside, that this matter must be substantially as has now been stated.

On the other hand; I have said that inspiration does not seem to be
an act. This is but an imperfect expression of my meaning, and needs
explanation. What I mean is, that an inspired writer is not the mere
passive instrument of the Spirit of God, mechanically writing, like an
amanuensis, only what is dictated to him verbatim et literatim. It is
impossible to reconcile Paul’s assertion with this. The differences in
style, diction, plan, and execution, among the sacred writers, can receive
no tolerable explanation on such a ground. Besides ; that the prophets
are not mere passive instruments, follows from the refusal of some of
them to exercise the prophetic gift. Jeremiah kept back; Jonah re-
fused ; and others have done the like ; all of which is incompatible with
the idea of mere passive instrumentality.

In a word; if John was to write an Apocalypse for the edification
and consolation of the churches, such a state of mind and feeling as fitted
chim for this work, such an influence as enlightened what was dark,
guided where the path was dubious, withheld when a wandering step
was about to be taken, and bestowed the power of judging what and

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 169

how much the work should contain—is all that can be reasonably asked
for, and all that is needful. Higher certainty as to what was communi-
cated could be obtained in no other way that has yet been proposed.

We should add to all this, that the inspired writer was conscious of
being influenced by a power from above. I cannot stop to prove this
point; but the repeated declarations of the Old Testament prophets, of
Paul also, and of John, show that such was the fact.

But it does not follow from all this, that the prophets could separate, by
their own consciousness when in such a state, the influence of the Spirit on
their minds from the action of their minds themselves. It is easy to illus-
trate what Imean. Those who are born again or regenerated, are not able
to distinguish the boundaries between the influence of the Spirit and the
action of theirown minds. They have a distinct feeling and conviction
that their minds are in some way brought to a new state. . Of this they are
conscious. But they are not able to point out a single thing which they
have felt or done, in which they were mere passive instruments and not
active agents., The Saviour has adverted to the mysterious action of
the Spirit in this case, and strongly asserted it. But as to the power of
any person to single out individual acts or feelings, and renounce from
distinct consciousness his active participation in them—that, it will be
conceded, is out of question. »

Who then can draw the line of distinction between the voluntary and
involuntary parts which an inspired writer has acted, in the composition
of a book? If we fix even upon the disclosures of the future, it would
be difficult for us to say, how far the elevation and illumination of our
minds might. enable us to see into it, and to judge of it. We believe it
must be the influence of the Holy Spirit which brings the mind to such
a state; but when the prophet is in this state, how far he acts and
speaks by virtue of his own proper agency, and how far as a mere pas-
sive instrument—who can define ?

It follows then from all this, that if we are to examine and judge at
all of any sacred writing, as to its plan and character, we must take ot as
a whole. We cannot draw lines of distinction between one part and ano-
ther. The plan is a whole; the execution of it consists of many subor-
dinate parts, all related to the general plan. There is no way, if we
examine at all, but to examine the whole. And what should hinder us
from inquiring, in what particular way it has pleased God to reveal cer-
tain truths to his church, and what are the methods for the accomplish-
ment of such an end which his wisdom has seen fit to sanction ?

The reader, if he duly weighs these considerations, will be prepared
more readily to proceed to an account of the economy of the Apoca-
lypse. He will not take offence at what is not designed to give offence,
nor consider it as profanation to inquire, in what way John has accom-

VOL. I. 22

170 $10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

plished the end he had in view.. It may be, however, that the reader
will feel at a loss to know for what purpose all this seeming digression
has been indulged in; if so, he will soon be able to solve his doubts.

In the composition of the Apocalypse there is a continuous series of
vision and symbol, from beginning to end. How much of all this is the
mere costume of the piece, depending on the pleasure of the writer who
is in the state already described? Or how much is to be considered as
having a proper historical basis, i. e. as founded upon facts which are
narrated? For example; are the state of exile at Patmos, the day of
the vision, the Christophany, the rapture into heaven, the vision of God
and of surrounding angels, the sealed book, the Lamb, and other like
things, to be regarded as proper realities which are merely described ?
Or are all these to be considered as the mere costume with which the
mind of the writer has invested the piece, in order to render it attractive
and impressive ?

Examples may be adduced, that would seem to support an affirmative
answer to the last of these questions. If we peruse attentively the 18th
Psalm, we shall soon see that the picture there given of the descent of
the divine Majesty, of his bowing the heavens, shaking the earth, riding
upon a cherub, surrounding himself with dark clouds and lightning and
thunder, scattering the enemies of David by hail-stones and coals of fire,
laying bare the deepest abysses of the sea, and drawing the chosen king
out of many waters—that all this, is plainly costwme. The simple truth
that lies under all these symbols, is, that God appeared for David, i. e.
manifested his favour towards him, oftentimes and in an extraordinary
manner, and delivered him from enemies and persecutors. So the in-
scription to the Psalm bids us to interpret it, and so vs. 17—20 plainly
and unequivocally declare that it must be interpreted. No one who well
understands the nature of poetry and the use of symbols will object to
this view ; and surely no one can regard all this as in any measure de-
rogatory to the dignity and truthfulness of the sacred writings.

Is the Apocalypse, now, only a more protracted series of symbols
which are of the like nature? Are the visions themselves, and all the
objects of them, merely the drapery thrown around the body of truth
that lies within? Do all these things depend. merely on the judgment
and imagination of the writer, as to the manner in which he should so
develope the views which he entertained as to be most impressive and
attractive ?

Many would start back, perhaps, from such a result, fearing that it
would at once strip the Apocalypse of all claim to be considered as a
true revelation. Yet the 18th Psalm, and many othér pieces of the like
nature, belong no less to the Scriptures, because they exhibit much that
is symbol, and which is consequently no more than costwme. But if

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 171

there be synibol, let it be remembered that something must be symbol-
ized ; if there be drapery er costume, there must be some person which
is invested with it. A passage of Scripture like Ps. 18: 6—16, is not
the less significant because it is made up of a series of symbols; I might
truly say, that it is the more significant, because the impression made
by it is much more vivid than what could be made by plain and _simple
prose. ;

Even so it might be with the Apocalypse. If it were all like so many
parables, or all clothed merely in the poetic garb which a vivid imagi-
nation had woven, it would not alter any important part of the instruc-
tion which it now conveys. All the change which would,be made by
this mode of composition and its consequent exegesis would be, that the
circumstances which attend the composition of the work must not be
regarded as historic realities, but as merely imaginary conceptions for
the purpose of giving vivacity and interest to the piece, while the actual
doctrines inculcated, or disclosures made, would remain the same,
whether we assumed this mode of composition, or the one which takes
for granted, that many of the things stated and having a relation to the
main composition are founded in real fact. The book of Job, for exam-
ple, is equally significant as to its main objects, whether we suppose the
things related in the Prologue and Epilogue, to be facts or allegory.
Nothing taught by the poem itself, is in any measure changed by the.
one assumption or the other. And such would plainly be the’ case in
respect to the Apocalypse, so far as a great portion of the work is con-
cerned, and in fact so far as appropriate Christian doctrine or disclosure
of the future is at all concerned.

With such views, I feel less interest in the question about the extent
of symbolical representation in the Apocalypse, than some writers have
done. We have a great mass of examples in the Hebrew prophets,
which would serve at once to show, that a writing loses nothing of sig-
nificance because it is made up of symbols. All parables, allegories,
and fables, are made up of symbols; but surely they are not more des-
titute of meaning than plain, direct, simple speech. Nor would it dero-
gate from the Apocalypse, in respect to anything very important, were
we to suppose that all its modes of representation are merely symboli-
cal, its visions as well as its imagery.

Thus much to allay the fears of some, as to the credit of the book
when thus considered. But I should not do justice to my own convic-
tions, were I to stop here. After all that can be said in favour,of such
a view, I am persuaded that it will not stand the test of a fair scrutiny.

No intelligent reader of the Apocalypse will deny, that there are
many and striking resemblances between the Old Testament prophets
and this book; specially must this be admitted in respect to the prophe-

172 $10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE,

cies of Ezekiel and Daniel. But in these books repeated mention is
made of prophetic ecstasy, during which symbols expressive of many
and important truths were disclosed to the seer. Thus in Ezek. 1:1,
the writer “sees the heavens opened, and beholds the visions of God.”
“ The hand of the Lord is upon him,” 1: 3, and he falls upon his face,
like one deprived of the use of his bodily faculties, 1:28. The hand of
the Lord is strong upon him, and conveys him [in spirit] to a great dis-
tance, 3: 12—14, 22. The like in 8: 1, 3, 7, 16. 11: 1, 5, 24. 37:1.
40: 1, 2, 17, 24, 32, 35, ete. Altogether in the same way is the state-
ment in Dan. 7:1. 8:1,2. The effect of this last vision is fainting and
sickness on the part of Daniel, Dan. 8: 27. So in Dan. 10: 8—10.
Comp. also Zech. 4: 1. The vision of Isaiah, chap. 6: 1—7, is of the
like tenor; Is. 8: 11 recognizes the same strong hand of the Lord that
is mentioned above.

If we turn now to the Apocalypse, we find there the same kind of
representations. John is im the spirit, 1: 10; he falls down like one
dead, 1:17. In the spirit is he taken up into heaven, 4: 1, 2, and there
begins a series of visions which go through the whole book. Why now
should not this be regarded as matter of fact, as well as the vision of
Peter in Acts 10: 9—16, or the spiritual rapture of Paul, 2 Cor. 12:
1—A41, or the vision of Stephen, Acts 7: 55, 56? I know of no good
reason why we should deny the actual existence of prophetic ecstasies, —
unless indeed we are bound to deny all which is extraordinary or truly
prophetic. But to canvass such a question would lead us quite beyond
the limits appropriate to our present object. I can only say, that for
myself I do believe in the divine inspiration of the prophets; and con-
sequently I see no good reason to deny that John was, as he affirms, 77
the spirit on the Lord’s day.

Along with matters of fact I must also class the presence of John in
the isle of Patmos, the appearance of Christ to the eye of his mind while
in a state of ecstasy; and along with these, the messages for substance
to be conveyed to the churches, and then the succession of symbolic
phenomena that follow. That he saw all these with his bodily eyes, the
Apocalypse not only does not assert, but even contradicts by the decla-
ration, that John was in a state of prophetic rapture or ecstasy. The
eye of the mind has sharper sight than that of the body; and the visions,
of the Apocalypse are by no means the less real visions, because they
were discernible only by the eye of the mind.

If any one is still disposed to maintain that all statements of this, na-
ture belong merely to the drapery of \prophecy, he would do well to tell
us, why the prophets, e. g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, do,
at one time, state the circumstance of vision, dream, ecstasy, ete., and at
another do not? If there was nothing different in one kind or mode of

wt

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 173

revelation from that in another, why should any difference as to the
manner of it be at all pretended? So far then as circumstances pre-
paratory to the vision of John, or the fact whether he really saw a vi-
sion, are concerned, we may and should regard the whole as a reality.
Neither of these pertain merely to the symbols of the book.

How much, then, which the book discloses in the visions, belongs to
reality? What and how much is drapery, and what is person ?

A minute and circumstantial answer to these questions will not be
expected here, and is not needed. The great leading truths involve the
subordinate ones ; and it will therefore be enough to glance at them.

I would comprise within the design of the proem to the Apocalypse,
the instructions, consolations, and admonitions, intended for the Asiatic
churches. The form of the seven epistles belongs appropriately to John,
who has carried trichotomy through the whole, and followed in all of
them the same general model of arrangement. But the substance of the
instruction here communicated, I should not hesitate to ascribe to the
charge which he received in vision from the Great Head of the churches.
This is truly and faithfully conveyed or exhibited; but the drapery
receives its hue and its shape from the plastic hand which furnishes it.

Next, as to the first catastrophe. The destruction of Jerusalem, and
the fall of the Jewish persecuting power, are truths or facts about the
reality of which he can have no doubt, who reads Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii.
Luke xxi. The first part of the Apocalypse, chap. iv—xi., is occupied
with the same theme. The subordinate truths are, that the Jews will
be punished in a great variety of ways and by a series of protracted
judgments ; that most of them will become more obdurate and rebel-
lious, under the rebukes and judgments of heaven; and finally, that
Christians will have warning and will escape from the general destruc-
tion. The certainty that the church will triumph in this rencontre, and
the encouragement which Christians have to persevere in their fidelity,
lies upon the face of all that is said within the limits of this first catas-
trophe. Such are the prominent and leading truths here taught; and
all these are taught by a succession of splendid symbols, the like of which
is presented by no other book that belongs to the Scriptures. To inves-
tigate, classify, arrange, and explain these symbols, is a work of time,
and skill, and patience ; specially after all the darkness that has been
collected and thrown upon them. But I must believe it is still a feasi-
ble work, and that we are not obliged to wander in uncertainty, if our
course be shaped by the land-marks which the writer has himself set up.

The second catastrophe has an ample basis, as to the principal fact
which it discloses, in the Old Testament and in the New. To avoid
repetition here, I must request the reader to cast his eye once more
over the synoptical view of the Messianic kingdom, which is given in

+

174 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

§ 2. above; where, especially in the predictions of Isaiah, he will find
ample proof that Gentiles, as well as Jews, are to be brought into sub-
jection to the Prince of Peace. And if Rev. xiii—xix. be compared,
as to its main subject, with 2 Thess. ii., is it not plain that Paul cherish-
ed the same general views as John? What is said in 1 Cor. 15: 24—
27, and in Rom. 11: 11—26, as well as many other passages in Paul’s
epistles, is of the same tenor. So the declarations of the Saviour in
John 12: 32, 10: 16, and elsewhere ; and of the like tenor is the com-
mand to go and teach all nations. But as to the subordinate parts of
this generic truth, it is plain that John assumes the fact, that the beast
and false prophet, combined with Satan, are more formidable and more
lasting and active enemies to Christianity, than those brought to view
under the first catastrophe. Hence he dwells upon them longer, al-
though the process of their punishment is less copiously described.
Justice in this case seems to be represented as executing in some Te-
spects a more.summary process ; perhaps on account of the greater
danger to the church from the heathen enemies; perhaps because the
long suffering of God to the Jewish nation, as exhibited under the
first catastrophe, was intended by the writer to be more fully dis-
played. But the final consummation of the second catastrophe is
not so sudden and complete, as in the first one. Rev. xvi. shows
that the head-quarters of the enemy are invaded and overthrown,
so that he is greatly crippled. But the heathen Roman power was
widely diffused. The persecutions of Rome were long protracted.
Hence the mora or delay in the description of its final overthrow.
Chap. xvii. xviii. are episodes ; but chap. xix. commences with the threat,
and proceeds with the execution, of the final ruin of the power of the
beast, assembled as his forces were from all quarters of the empire.

No one, now, well versed in the use of symbols and prophetic im-
agery, will think in this case of seeking for individual, minute, his-
torical application of all that is exhibited in the symbols. The exhibi-
tion is so managed, that a consistency and concinnity is preserved
throughout, for the sake of verisimilitude and in order to give pleasure
to the reader. But no greater mistake can be made by the beholder of
a picture, than that he should convert back-grownd into fore-ground.
What should we say, for example, of the critic on a well executed paint-
ing of the combat of Hector and Achilles, if he should aver, that the
main object of the painter was, to present the Scamander and the plains
of Troy, the distant forests, and the sky interspersed with clouds? We
should say that he did not understand even the first elements of the art.
All circumstances of this nature, even the walls of Troy surmounted by
spectators among whom might be Priam and Hecuba and Andromache,
and beyond these the Grecian and Trojan chieftains and armies—all,

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 175

all these are mere back-ground of such a picture, subordinate entirely to
the main object, and serving only to make out a delightful verisimilitude.
So is it in the Apocalypse. The apparent action of the symbols is in

_accordance with the nature of the symbols; while the tout ensemble is
merely indicative of a great, a dangerous, a trying, and a long continued
contest, which ends at last in a complete overthrow of the heathen
power and all its coadjutors.

To make out, now, from such a generic representation by symbols, a
succinet and individual history of the battles, sieges, famine, and vari-
ous misfortunes, which overthrew the Roman power, would be doing
just as they have done who make out a whole history of the fall and
wickedness of man and of the scheme of redemption by a Saviour, from
the parable of the good Samaritan. One may, if he pleases, look with
complacency on the intention of the expositor who does this, but he can-
not respect his understanding, nor approve of his taste, nor trust himself
to such a guide. Why then should he admit an expositor to do that.
with the Apocalypse, which he would elsewhere consider an abuse of
the sacred volume ?

As to limitations of time, in regard to the first and second catastro-
phes, in the first they seem to be somewhat clearly marked, as occupy-
ing three and a half years; while in the second they are marked only
by the destruction of the particular head of the beast then raging against
the church, which also is to take place within the like period. acts
correspond to these limitations in both cases. We cannot stop for the
proof of this here; the reader will find it in another place. But the
Jinale of the second catastrophe, viewing this matter in all its bearings,
is plainly represented as protracted to a more distant period.

When the enemies of Christianity throughout a great portion of the
world are thus subdued, it follows of course that a time of peace and pros-
perity to the church will ensue. Such is the picture in the Apocalypse
chap. xx. The representation is exceedingly brief, because the thing pre-
sented lies in the distant future ; and in this respect the analogy of the
prophecies in general is followed. But that such a period of prosperity and
extension of the Messiah’s kingdom was disclosed to the prophetic eye,
even under the Jewish dispensation, any one may see who will take
the trouble to review the prophecies adduced in § 2. above.

Yet there is one circumstance attending the introduction of this
period, that recent exegesis admits to be deducible from the text of chap.
xx, which is alleged to be entirely wnique, and which therefore, it is
said, must be regarded as merely imaginary, or as belonging merely to
the poetic conception and excited imagination of the writer. It is that of
the jirst resurrection, Rev. 20: 5, 6. I am aware, indeed, that this has
often been asserted ; and moreover, that in consequence of such a view of

176 § 10. HBCONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

what the passage would teach if it were literally interpreted, a majority of
commentators have deemed it necessary to give to the whole passage a
sense merely figurative. That there are some tropical expressions in it,
such as “reigning with Christ,” and “ being priests unto God,” must,
no doubt, be plain to all. But these and the like occur in the midst of
simple prose, and constitute no good argument against the exegesis
which deduces from the whole passage the reality of a first resurrec-
tion ; see full references to such figurative passages in Comm. on Rev.1: 6.

After investigating this subject, moreover, I have doubts whether the
assertion is correct, that such a doctrine as that of the first resurrection
is nowhere else to -be found’ in the Scriptures. What can Paul mean,
in Phil. 8: 8—11, when he represents himself as readily submitting to
every kind of self-denial and suffering, “if by any means he might
attain unto the resurrection of the dead?” Of his resurrection ‘at the
end of the world, when all without exception, even the wicked as well
as the good, will surely be raised, he could have no possible doubt.
What sense can this passage have then, if it represents him as labour-
ing and suffering merely in order to attain to a resurrection, and as
holding this up to view, by implication, as unattainable unless he should
arrive at a high degree of Christian perfection? On the other hand; let
us suppose a first resurrection to be appointed as a special reward of high
attainments in Christian virtue, (exactly as in Rev. 20: 4—6), and all
seems to be made plain and easy. Of a resurrection in a figurative
sense, i. e. of regeneration, Paul cannot be speaking ; for he had already
attained to that on the plains of Damascus. Of the like tenor with
this text, moreover, seems to be the implication in Luke 14: 14, where
the Saviour promises his disciples a sure reward for kindness to the
poor and the suffering, by the declaration : ‘‘ Thou shalt be reeompensed
at the resurrection of the just.” Why the resurrection of the just ?
What special meaning can this have, unless it implies that there is a
resurrection, where the just only, and not the unjust, will be raised ?
This would agree entirely with the view in Rev. 20: 5, “But the rest
of the dead lived not again, until the 1000 years were finished.” There
is the more reason to believe that such is the simple meaning of the
words in Luke 14: 14, inasmuch as two recent antipodes in theology
and criticism, Olshausen and De Wette, both agree in this exegesis.
There are other passages, also, which are considerable in respect to
number, that speak of the resurrection in respect to the righteous, and
make no mention of that of the wicked. Some of these, at least, are sus-
ceptible of the same interpretation as that given above. In particular,
what other satisfactory exegesis can we give to the awugy) ... émeita. . «
eit of 1 Cor. 15: 23, 24, by which the apostle marks the respective
tayue or order of each, and represents that which is at the end (téhog)
as different from the rest?

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 177

It is well known, I may add, that among the Jews the opinion was
quite common, that whenever the full development of the Messiah should
take place, there would be a resurrection of the just. They appear to
have deduced this opinion from Is. 26: 19, (which no doubt describes
a resurrection of some kind) ; from Ezek. xxxvii.; and from Dan. 12: 2.
That this opinion is very old among the Jewish Rabbins, is clear from
the fact, that their most ancient books speak to such a purpose. In the
Zohar(Genes.) we find, among many other things respecting the resurrec-
tion, the following: “The Scripture says [Is. 26: 19], Thy dead shall
live ; they, namely, who are buried in the land of Israel. . . . Therefore
those bodies are raised up, viz., of the Israelites who are buried there,
but not the bodies of the idolatrous nations.” The reference is to the
period of the Messiah. Thus in another passage of the same work:
“Our Rabbins have taught us, that in the times of the Messiah (72>
N25), the blessed God will restore to life the just, ete.” Zohar, Genes.
fol. 61. See full quotations in Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. II. p. 572, 574.
So Zohar, Genes. fol. 73: “The world cannot be freed from its guilt,
until king Messiah shall come, and the blessed God shall raise up those
who sleep in the dust ;” (commenting on the expression, he will swal-
low up death in victory, Is. 25: 8). The same comment is made in
Jalkuth Shimoni, I. fol. 188, and Shemoth Rabba, § 30. fol. 127. See
Schoettg. II. p. 167. To the same purpose speaks the Targum of Jon-
athan, as quoted by Wetstein on Rey. 20: 8; and Maimonides testifies
that the opinion of many Rabbins is the same, as quoted by Lightfoot
on John 6: 31. In fact, that the great mass of Jewish Rabbins have
believed and taught the doctrine of the resurrection of the just, in the
days of the Messiah’s development, there can be no doubt on the part of
him who has made any considerable investigation of this matter.* The
specific limitation of this to the commencement of the Millenium, seems
to be peculiar to John.

No one must understand me, however, as appealing to Rabbinic au-
thority in order to establish the doctrine of a jirst resurrection. All
that I design to accomplish by such an appeal is, to show that such a
doctrine was not a strange one to the Jews. We cannot say with cer-
tainty, that the book of Zohar is as ancient as the Apocalypse ; but the
prevailing opinion among critics seems now to be, that it belongs at
least to the early ages of the Christian era, although it has some interpo-
lations of a much later date. If so, it seems quite probable that when

* The reader who is desirous of pursuing this investigation still further, is re-
ferred to Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus, [. § 16, p. 345 seq. Suskind tiber
die Jiidischen Begriffe, etc., in Flatt’s Magazin fir Dogmatik und Moral, St. x.
p. 104 seq. De Wette, Bib. Dogmatik, § 203. § 304. § 188. Eisenmenger, Ent-
decktes Judenthum, Vol. If. cap. XV1. p. 890 seq.

VOL. I. 23

178 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

John proclaimed a first resurrection, he would be regarded by the men
of his time as free from any imputation of broaching novelties in this
respect. ‘The laws of philology oblige me to suppose, that the Saviour
and Paul have both alluded to such a doctrine. That it has not been
made more prominent in the New Testament, is no decisive objection
against it. Where but in 1 Cor. 15: 24—28 have we an account of
Christ’s resignation of his kingly power? Where but in 1 Cor. 6: 2, 3,
are we told that “ saints shall judge the world, and judge angels?” And
are these truths to be discarded, because they are no oftener brought to
view and insisted on? On such ground, what must become of the au-
thority and infallibility of scriptural teaching? Moreover it is obvious,
that the jinal resurrection, general judgment, and the consequent dis-
tribution of rewards and punishments, are things of higher moment and
deeper interest in many respects, than the resurrection of the just only
at the commencement of the Millennium; which is a good reason for
more frequently insisting upon the former. Nor should it be forgotten,
that even the Old Testament contains some passages which may very
naturally be applied to the Messianic or first resurrection, e. g. Is. 26: 19.

If there be any good foundation for what has now been said, it fol-
lows, that so far as the first resurrection and the millennial period of
prosperity to the church are concerned, they are not to be regarded as
mere poetic conceptions, i. e. as the drapery only of the Apocalypse,
but as facts which the writer designed to bring to view in a most inter-
esting connection and relation.

In respect to the three verses (Rev. 20: 7—9) which bring to view
Goce and Magog, they plainly belong to the very distant future.
Nothing but general ideas can be gathered from them. That the millen-
nial period will not bring about the conversion of the whole human race
without exception, is evident from the very face of the entire statement.
That the enemies of Christianity, who will come forth to assault her at
the end of the thousand years, will be numerous, will come from the
remoter and hitherto inaccessible parts of the earth, and’ will be over-
thrown speedily and with terrible destruction, is decided by Rev. 20:
7—9. But this is all that we can gather from the text respecting the
matter. Gog and Magog are plainly symbolical names merely ; and
symbols also are the designations of the camp of the saints, and the be-
loved city, and probably the fire from God out of heaven. The facts
which lie at the basis, as I apprehend them, are such as have just been
stated.

As to the subjects of the remainder of the Apocalypse, it requires but
little more delay in order to accomplish our present general view. The
GENERAL JUDGMENT, HELL, HEAVEN, are to be found as deseribed or
adverted to in all parts of the New Testament. The Saviour has plainly

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 179

enough declared all these; see John 5: 21—30. 14: 3. Matt. 25: 31—
46, and many other passages ; and as to Paul and Peter, no quotations
need to be made. Even the final. destruction of the world is not a
doctrine peculiar to the Apocalypse. Peter affirms it in plain words,
2 Pet. 8: 12,13; and the new heavens and the new earth are not only
disclosed by him, but even by Isaiah in 65: 17. 66: 22. John has in-
deed adorned this last idea in a wonderful manner, in Rev.. xxi. xxii. ;
but all this symbolical imagery is in perfect keeping with the tenor of the
Apocalypse, and much of it tallies well with Ezekiel, xI—xlviii. The
reality of mew abodes for resurrection-saints, and resurrection-sinners
also, may well be argued from the new mode of existence on which
both classes enter.

My object thus far has been principally to show, that substantial facts
lie at the basis of the Apocalypse, and that this basis is not a mere im-
aginary or poetic conception. On this John has indeed erected a new
and splendid edifice, adorned in many ways, and especially with orna-
ments suited to the oriental taste. This is in keeping with the country
and the culture of the author. His Epopee, like most other produc-
tions that bear such a name, has its foundation in facts and truths which
are of high importance. We might even say of John’s work, that it is
founded on truths of the highest possible significance and importance, not
only to the churches then in being, but to those of every age and nation.

So far now as these are essentially concerned, imagination and poetic
fancy have nothing to do. The truths are assumed and declared plaiuly
and. unequivocally. They constitute, if one may so express it, the
PERSON. <A secondary question, and one the next in order, is, What
constitutes the DRAPERY or CostTuME? To the consideration of this
subject or question we must now proceed.

All symbol is of course drapery. . It is the thing signified which is
person ; but the way and manner of signifying it, when imagery and
symbols are employed, is merely the fashion of the costume. How has
John managed these? What credit is due to him, if he be exhibited
on the theatre of aesthetics? What rank does he hold as to fancy, and
imagination, and descriptive style, and arrangement, and skill in the
disposal of all the machinery (sit venia !) of the piece ?

A long and laboured account of these matters will not be expected
in this place. It belongs to the commentary to point out and disclose
particulars. But some general views of these subjects should find a place
here, nor are they by any means unimportant.

I pass the proem or prelude (i—ii.), with but few remarks. It will
be conceded, I trust, that the lonely isle of Patmos, the exile of the
writer because of his Christian fidelity, and the Lord’s day on which
the revelations are made, are all highly appropriate and interesting cir-

180 a $10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

cumstances, in respect to the visions which follow. The attention, in
such circumstances, must be undivided, fixed, solemn, deep. The
Christophany in chap. i. is confessedly a splendid and sublime exhibition.
The fact (in vision) is assumed. The manner of it serves to adorn, to
beautify, to impress.

The tone which pervades the epistles to the churches, the high spir-
ituality of the whole sentiment, the demands of sincere and entire devo-
tedness of heart and life, the reproof of faults which is at once both kind
and severe, the glorious promises in order to cheer on the martyrs who
were suffering for the truth, the rich variety of description in setting
forth the rewards to be obtained, the appropriate circumstances that are in
each case introduced, the regularity of the trichotomy through the whole,
and yet the concealment of it so that few readers think of its existence
—these, and other things of the like nature, might all be mentioned as
characteristics of the epistles to the seven churches of Asia.

But let us proceed to the main work itself. The commencement of it
is in a style truly magnificent. Heaven is opened to the spiritual and
mental eye of the seer, and he is conveyed thither. On an exalted
throne there, sits One whose name is too awful, at the first view, to be
pronounced. Lightning, thunder, the archangels, the elders of the
church, the redeemed, and angels without number, surround the throne.
Four living creatures, capable of moving in any direction, and in an in-—
stant of time, support it. The innumerable host of the world of light
fall prostrate before him who is enthroned, with the deepest reverence,
and fill the heavens with ascriptions of praise and honour and glory.

I know of nothing that surpasses this, unless it be, that Is. vi. has at-
tained to more complete brevity. But who would lose a-single circum-
stance which John has added? In truth, John has here combined the
several theophanies in Ezek. i, Is. vi, and Dan. vii, into one; which still
is no imitation, but clearly the result of his own conceptions.

The object of the vision comes next into view. ‘THE FUTURE CONDI-
TION AND PROSPECTS OF THE CHURCH, as yet one of the deep mysteries
of God, are to be disclosed. In the right hand of him that sitteth on the
throne appears a book, on whose pages these mysteries are inscribed—a
book sealed with seven seals. No one of all the heayenly host can open
and read it, or divine its meaning. The seer bursts into tears because it
cannot be perused. The Lamb of God next makes his appearance
within the inner circle around the throne. He advances and takes the
book. All heaven burst forth into a song of congratulation and joy.
Salvation and glory and victory are ascribed to the Lamb; and this
song is echoed and reéchoed to the most distant parts of the universe.
Chap. v.

The breaking of the seals, and the disclosure of what the book con-

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 181

tains, now follow in order. Is this by pictures or symbols drawn upon
the pages of the book, or by pictures in part, and partly by language?
The latter seems the most probable, inasmuch as the book is described
as being yeyoapusvor Ecwder xa OmtoPer. But be it in either of these
ways, disclosure is made, and the representation is exceedingly vivid.
A persecuting and powerful enemy of the church is to be arrested and
destroyed. Forthwith, therefore, a dread array appears, which is com-
petent to the execution of such a task. The breaking of the first seal
exhibits the leader of the army, with all the insignia of triumph around
him. The second discloses the symbol of an army glittering with the
instruments of slaughter. The third introduces into the train famine
with its ravages and distresses. The fourth brings up the rear of this
awful host with Death on his pale horse, and Hades, i. e. the spectre-
world, as following in his train in order to execute his will:

Such is the array commissioned against the persecuting enemies of
the church. All seems to be now ready for action. But first, this mar-
shalled host, drawn out for battle, are to be wrought up to the highest
pitch of excitement before the onset. The manner in which this is ac-
complished presents one of the most exquisite scenes to be found in any
writing, either sacred or profane. The bleeding martyrs who have al-
ready fallen are seen, at the opening of the fifth seal, lying at the foot
of the altar in heaven, as indicative of their having been the victims of
slaughter. There, with blood streaming around, they lift up their cry to
him ‘in whose sight the death of his saints is precious,’ and ask with
elevated voice how long the retributions of justice on their murderers
are to be delayed. Robes of glory are given to them, and they receive
assurance, that after a little season all will be accomplished which they
desire. A scene like this cannot be imagined to have been exhibited,
without supposing the army who were assembled to have been wrought
up to the highest pitch of excitement for the contest. The commanders
of great armies are wont to devise some rallying word or signal, at the
moment when the onset of battle is made. The ear has not yet ceased
to vibrate, nor the heart ceased from thrilling, with the signal hoisted at
the moment of attack on board the admiral-ship of him who led the van
in the greatest naval battle that was ever fought. That signal was:
ENGLAND EXPECTS EVERY MAN TO DO HIS DUTY. Every man did it,
and in a few hours the enemy were no more. But the sight of bleeding
martyrs at the foot of the altar on which they appeared to have been
sacrificed, was a more thrilling signal than even this. And with such a
sight the dread array commissioned by heaven was presented. Chap. vi.

We no longer wonder at the sequel. The sixth seal presents us with
new symbols of heaven’s righteous indignation against the persecutors.
The sun and moon are eclipsed.’ Falling stars fill the world with con-

a

182 » § 10. ECONOMY OF que APOCALYPSE,

sternation. Earthquakes swallow up islands and overthrow mountains.
The inhabitants of the land to be smitten fly to rocks and. precipices, to
hide themselves in their crevices and find security. All stand in fearful
-expectation of their final doom. 6: 12—17.

Before that doom arrives, however, the faithful servants of God, who
are scattered through the land, must be rendered secure. The tempest,
which had shaken the earth to its centre, is stilled,
commissioned to put a mark on the servants of God. elve thousand
of each and every tribe are sealed. Heaven is filled with joy at this,
and praise and thanksgiving burst forth from all around the throne of
God. Conspicuous among these are the martyrs, clothed in their re-
splendent robes. John inquires with deep interest respecting these ;
and he receives assurances, that every kind, of blessing and happiness
awaits them. Chap. vii.

All seems now to be ready for consummation. The seventh wad last
seal is about to be broken. The hosts of heaven stand, for a time, in
mute and fearful expectation. But. instead of the speedy final execution
of justice, God’s mercy toward his once beloved and chosen people is
here disclosed. Still further opportunity is given them to repent. The
seventh seal introduces seven angels, each having a trumpet, which they
are to blow in regular succession. — It is thus that the last seal becomes,
as to the execution of what it develops, disparted into seven different
portions, which must occupy some time in their appropriate disclosure.

Of these seven trumpets, there is a division into two classes, one of
four, and the other of three. The first four introduce various phenome-
na, which principally affect, in the way of injury, the earth, the sea, the
rivers and fountains of water, and the luminaries of the sky. The ene-
my are subjected, in this way, te various sufferings and distress, but as
yet only a few comparatively are destroyed. Chap. viii.

Not so with the last three woe-trwmpets. The first of these brings
unnumbered legions of locusts from the bottomless pit, with the angel of
destruction at their head. These locusts are not of the ordinary kind.
They touch not the vegetation of the earth; for they are. commissioned
only to wound and torment men. Their teeth are sharp and terrible,
and their stings like those of scorpions.. When these have fulfilled their
period, then follows the sounding of the sixth trumpet, and a host of
200,000,000 of horsemen advance from the East. It is not the number
only which fills us with astonishment, in this case; it is specially the
qualities of the horses. The riders indeed are armed with panoply that
fills the beholder with terror; but the horses themselves have mouths
like lions, and tails like the amphisbaena, i. e. capable of inflicting
wounds. Great multitudes are destroyed by such an invasion; yet
those who remain, still continue impenitent as before. Chap. ix.

”

al
-§10. Economy OF THE APOCALYPSE. = 183

Tf there be any part of the Apocalypse where the writer is exposed
to the charge of carrying his imagery to excess, it is certainly the one
now before us. The locusts and the horses are both objects of imagi-
nation merely, not actual existences. Natural locusts do not attack
men; nor to horses belong teeth like those < lions, nor two heads like
the amphisbaena. Yet what shall we say? Shall we assume, that in
a symbolical picture like that of John, everything must be a mere copy
of actual existences? What writer of Epopee ever confined himself
within such limits? In the book of Job even—does the war-horse there,
and behemoth, and the leviathan, play only actual and every-day parts ?
And if John be allowed to go beyond the bounds of real and actual ex-
istences, in order to adorn or render impressive his composition, why
may he not follow his imagination out, and present all the glowing pic-
tures which it portrays? It is plain and well known, that locusts and
cavalry were the two greatest and most terrible scourges known in all
the East, at the time when John wrote. Why then may he not present
them here, in accordance with the genius of oriental poetry, endowed
with preternatural forms and armed with extraordinary powers? To do
this, is no more than all epic poets have done. Yet the imagery even
of the destructive horses is not so entirely fanciful as one might at first
suppose. It is well known, that in the East, (as at the present day,
for example, among the Turcomans), horses are trained to attack with
their mouths and fore-feet, as also to repel with their hinder feet and
the swift motion of their tails. Fraser has presented this, in a manner
very picturesque, in that faithful and animated portrait of Turcomans
and Persians, which he has drawn in his Kuzzil Bash. And as to the
locusts, surely it required no great transformation, to turn them into
creatures like scorpions. It is an easy and obvious conception.

It should be noted here, moreover, in respect to the supposition that
the armies of locusts and horsemen were represented to John by paint-
ings, i. e. by the drawing of sketches upon the pages of the book with
seven seals, that this seems to be out of all reasonable question, inas-
much as it appears to be impossible; and so of the thunders, and of
many other things that belong to the first catastrophe. The probability
appears to be, that John is to be regarded as only reading the descrip-
tion upon the leaves of the opened book, or as hearing it from his angel-
interpreter; just as he heard the number of the horsemen, Rey. 9: 16.
More probable still it seems to. my own mind, that John saw, on the
leaves of the book, either certain symbols, or words, which suggested
ideas that led his own mind to form its conceptions of the locusts and of
the horsemen. Terrible sufferings and wide-spreading destruction are
plainly the matters of fact that lie at the basis of such a representation.
Of the representation itself, after the explanation just given, it is enough

184 @ § 10. ECONOMY OF rue APOCALYPSE, |

to say, that it is oriental—altogether oriental. And why should it not be
so, when it was written by an oriental man, and addressed originally to
oriental readers ?

But let us proceed with the writer’s further execution of his plan.
One woe-trumpet still remains; and all which is to be done as prepara-
tory to this, must now be accomplished.

A resplendent and mighty angel takes his station 1 the sea and
the land, as having power over both, and lifts up his hand to heaven,
and swears that delay shall be no longer, than until the time when the
last or seventh trumpet shall sound. Seven thunders confirm the sen-
tence passed. In the mean time, as the contents of the book with seven
seals will now soon be completed, John receives another book, and a
new commission, so as to extend his predictions to foreign kings and
nations. Chap. x.

The city “where our Lord was crucified,” is about to be destroyed.
There was the temple of God ; and there, in former days he had dwelt.
The most holy place is therefore measured off for exemption from de-
struction; i. e. the spivitual part. of the ancient dispensation is still to
be preserved. And as the last and consummating act of wickedness on
the part of Jewish persecutors and unbelievers, God’s faithful witnesses,
the prophets, who preached Christ and performed many miracles, are
persecuted, slain, and exposed to all possible indignities. But heaven —
saves and vindicates the cause of truth, and makes it triumphant.

All is now ready. The righteous are safe ; the holy of holies is safe ;
the Jewish people have consummated their wickedness and guilt. The
seventh and last trumpet sounds. The shouts of victory in heaven fill
the ears and occupy the mind of the Seer, and turn away his attentien
from the sad spectacle of the overthrow of his beloved city and people.
Thunder and lightning and earthquake and hail complete the work of
destruction. The old dispensation comes to an end. . The most holy
place is now thrown open; and God, who could be nearly approached,
in former days, only once a year by the high priest, is henceforth ap-
proachable by all, at all times and in all lanka

Thus ends the first catastrophe ; in which chap. vii. x. and xi. 1—14,
may be regarded as episodes, interwoven indeed with great skill into
the main theme of this catastrophe. Here is much exercise of imagin-
ation in the choice of symbols, great powers of description by vivid im-
pressive language and imagery, and great variety of action which ex-
cites a deep and fearful interest in the reader. Can any candid reader
deny merit to apiece executed in such a manner? But of the aesthetics,
more in the sequel.

We come now to the second catastrophe.. Here too, as in the first, is a
proem or prologue. It is nota Theophany, nor a Christophany in the

*

Go. ee OF THE APOCALYPSE. * 185

like sense with that in chap. i. It is however a symbolical representa-
tion of the Logos becoming incarnate. From the bosom of the church
he comes, as to his fleshly or mortal nature. Here, as often in the Old
Testament and many times in the New, the church is represented under
the emblem of a woman. It is not the church merely as Jewish, cer-
tainly not the church as Christian (which was subsequent), but the
church as God and always the object of his care and love,
- which is sy ed as the mother of “the Man-child who is to rule the
nations with an iron sceptre” (Rev. 12:5). Like the bride in Ps. 45:
18, she is adorned with great splendour. Sun, moon, and stars unite in
shedding their glory around her. She is introduced as being pregnant
with the child who is to be the great King, and Satan is presented as
her violent and persecuting enemy. He stands ready to devour the
child at its birth. But the woman is protected by a watchful providence,
and flees into the wilderness where she finds an asylum from Satan’s ven-
geance. Chap. xii. :

The history of Mary, the cruel designs of Herod when he massacred
the children at Bethlehem, and the flight of the infant Saviour’s parents
to Egypt, through the wilderness, must all have been floating before the
mind of the winds when he drew this picture. His meaning is render-
ed too specific, by the declaration: “‘ She brought forth a son who is to
rule the nations with an iron sceptre” (Ps. 2:9), to admit of any room
for doubt as to the general design of this proem to the second catas-
trophe.

Mere glances at the Saviour’s history are given. “He is caught up
unto God;” and Satan, full of rage, attempts to follow him into the
upper regions. But there Michael and his angels meet him in contest,
and thrust him and his legions down to the earth. Disappointed in his
hopes as to the great Head of the church, he now turns his enmity
against the other children of the woman, i. e. the members of the Chris-
tian church.

Tt is thus that the writer introduces us to the second great contest and
catastrophe. For the moment, his steps have been regressive. We
may now expect.them to be progressive.

I cannot stop to remark here on the additional interest which the
writer thus throws around his theme, by pointing out the ground and
origin of Satan’s peculiar enmity against Christianity. It is as much
as to say: See what bitter and bloody persecutions the church is still
to expect !

To constitute a complete association of inimical powers, two other
adversaries, in league with Satan and under his guidance, are next
brought upon the scene, and made to take an active and bitterly hostile
part. A beast rises from the sea, with seven heads and ten horns, (em-

VOL. I. 24 *

lad

186 § 10. nCONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

blems of great power and of offensive attack), in which are united all
the savage qualities of the most ferocious beasts. To him Satan gives
ample power, and through him receives much tribute of homage. ‘This
beast is not only blasphemous against God, but it persecutes the saints
in every form, and with every kind of oppression both civil and religious.
All but the truly faithful are compelled to do it homage.

A second beast arises from the land, not armed with a power like that
of the first beast, but with craftiness and superstition and deep malig-
nity. All manner of deceit is practised in order to mislead the faithful,
and all manner of oppression and cruelty (by means of the power of
the first beast) in order to force them to do homage to idols,

The name of these deadly powers is not expressly given. , It is in-
timated, however, at the close of the brief sketch which is given of
them, that the name of the principal beast, if computed in the usual
manner of reckoning letters for numbers, will amount to 666. The
reasons for speaking mystically here, I shall endeavour to give in the
Commentary on Rey. 13: 18, and the Excursus connected with it.
Chap. xiii.

Thus we have before us, Satan, the beast, and the false prophet or
second beast, in combination against an apparently feeble Christian
church. How can it escape destruction, when the civil and sacerdotal
powers of the earth, and the prince of the spirits of darkness, are
leagued against it ?

No sooner, ‘however, is all this fairly placed before the reader, than
he is led to a prospect of hope for the suffering church, notwithstanding
this combination of mighty and seemingly irresistible enemies against
her. ‘The first signal or symbol which inspires hope, is the appearance
on mount Zion of the 144,000, who had been sealed in their forehead
and exempted from the dangers that awaited them in the Jewish land.
Not on mount Zion above, as many have supposed, but on mount Zion
below, once the central point of the Jewish church, and dangerous ground
for Christians. There stand the redeemed, while the sound of songs in
the heavenly world, uttered on their account, is heard by them—songs
which none but the faithful like themselves can understand. The fidelity
and the purity of these redeemed followers of thé Lamb are eulogized in
such a manner, as strongly to invite others to an imitation of their virtues.

There seems, at first sight, to be a kind of vozegor zgozegor in the
plan here proposed. Nero began to persecute Christians in A. D. 64,
and was assassinated in A. D. 68; in which last year the Apocalypse
appears to have been written. But Jerusalem was not taken and destroy-
ed, until A. D. 70. How can John be supposed to have represented
the 144,000 as saved and redeemed, before the destruction of Jerusalem
which happened some two years after the time when he wrote ?

*
4

wy,

§ 10. nconomy OF THE APOCALYPSE. * 187

The answer to this is, that Christians were most fully warned by
Christ, (Matt. xxiv. and elsewhere), to flee to the mountains as soon as
the Roman army advanced upon Palestine. Doubtless the great body
of them did so. The invasion was early in A. D. 67; and it seems
quite probable, that ere John wrote the Apocalypse, the great body of
Christians had fled beyond the Jordan to Pella, and were safe. That
he presents ther on mount Zion, belongs to the tact of the writer. He
presents them in vision merely to the eye .of the beholder, as en-
tirely safe amid the most dangerous and powerful enemies of Christianity
in the holy land. The station that is assigned them in the vision, is a
symbol or pledge that they are safe, even in the very place where ¢heir
blood had so often and so profusely been shed.

Such then is the first and most significant symbol of the future victory
of the persecuted church. The second is triplex and is scarcely less
significant. . Through mid-heaven a herald-angel flies, proclaiming that
the gospel will of a certainty be preached to every creature, and exhort-
ing to worship God alone, and not idols. A second angel proclaims the
fall of great Babylon. A third follows, and explicitly declares the
severe punishment of all who shall cleave to her and obey her. As an
epiphonema, a voice from heaven itself proclaims, on the other hand, the
peace and glory that await those who die in the Lord.

Thus the second symbol is presented by words or proclamations. The
third consists of a series of symbols by actions. ‘The Redeemer ap-
pears seated on a shining cloud, with a sharp sickle in his hand. An
angel from the throne of the Eternal brings him a request to thrust in
the sickle and reap. This is done. A second angel from the temple
in heaven appears, armed with a sharp weapon. A third angel from
the altar above brings a request, that he ‘would thrust the weapon into
the vintage, and cut off the clusters. This is done, and they are cast
into a great wine-press, and blood flows out to the distance of a thousand
and six hundred furlongs. Chap. xiv.

Such then are the symbols of the future destiny of the persecuting
enemy. These being exhibited, immediate action follows. To seven
angels are committed seven vials filled with the wrath of God, in order
to discharge them upon the enemy. The song of anticipated victory
follows, which is sung by the martyrs in heaven. The seven vials are
distributed, and dark clouds surround the throne of glory. As before
in respect to the trumpets, so here in respect to the vials; they are di-
vided into classes of fowr and three. The vials are next successively
poured out upon the earth, the sea, the fountains and rivers of water,
and upon the sun, i. e. the heavens. The last three vials have a near
connection with the destruction of men. The fifth, poured upon the
seat of the beast, produces darkness upon the land, and grievous ulcera-

ur
‘ ‘ oc

‘

188 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

tions upon men. The sixth, poured on the Euphrates, opens a way for
the armies of an invading enemy. The beast and his coadjutors assem-
ble their forces at Armageddon ; whose very name itself is indicative of
their overthrow. The seventh, poured on the atmosphere, the seat and
cause of storms and tempests, brings on lightning, thunder, earthquake,
and destructive hail. Babylon is shaken and disrupted, and becomes
like a mass of ruins; as do also the other great cities of the allies con-
federate with her. Yet even plagues like these did not cure the mad-
ness of the church’s foes. Chap. xv. Xvi.

The writer now provides, by the introduction of an episode, that the
reader shall be made more explicitly acquainted with the enemies that
have been assailed and defeated. In vision, John is rapt into the wil-
derness, where he sees a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast having
seven heads and ten horns. This is the symbol of the bloody and per-
secuting power that reigns over the nations; and the woman is the great
city which is at the head of the dominion, who is drunk with the blood
of martyrs, and entices all the nations with her magic-cup of abomina-
tions. The characteristics are made out in view of the then reigning
emperor, Nero. Of him the soothsayers had predicted, that he would
be assassinated; but also that he would recover from his wounds and go
into exile, from which he would return and resume his former power.
In accordance with the tenor of this report which was generally cireu- -
lated and believed, he is described by John, as “the beast that was, and
is not, and will come up from the abyss;” and further, as ‘being an
eighth, and yet one of the seven emperors of Rome.’ The description is,
no doubt, in some measure designedly enigmatical, in order to avoid the
imputation of a seditious attack upon the reigning power. But the
seven hills, symbolized by the seven heads of the beast; and the seven
kings also symbolized by the same heads, (one of which kings is yet to
come), seem to render certain the time when the Apocalypse was com-
posed, and the country and dominion to which the writer adverts. The
ten horns are symbols of allied and subordinate kings, who unite with
the beast in carrying on the persecution of the church. But these will
ultimately turn against the beast, and help to destroy it. Chap. xvii.

It is thus that John has. fulfilled his very difficult and delicate task of
informing his readers what his principal aim was, in the second catas-
trophe. Complaint has sometimes been made, that the explanation is
darker than the symbols which precede it. This has apparently some
foundation ; for chap. xvii. may certainly be numbered among the most
difficult of all in the Apocalypse. Yet I cannot help thinking, that this
is to be attributed to two circumstances ; first, the distance of time, which
has rendered obscure to us the hints of the writer that. were in all pro-
bability well understood at first; and secondly, the extreme difficulty and

§ 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 189

danger, both to the writer and readers, of speaking out plainly and di-
rectly. It would.at once have been construed as a erimen laesae may es-
éatis, on the part of both. John would have been condemned for writ-
ing it, and his readers for approving of it. Hence the enigmatical ex-
pressions in chap. xvii, which only the initiated could well comprehend
and explain; but which, when duly comprehended, seem to leave no
room for rational doubt as to the meaning of John.

The overthrow.which great Babylon had experienced is followed, at
last, by her complete and final destruction. The people of God are
warned by a mighty angel to flee from her who has so long corrupted
the nations, because ample and final retribution is about to be made. In
anticipation of this, the Lament to be sung over her is, introduced, as an
evidence how complete her destruction will be. It exhibits expressions
of wonder and horror, on the part of kings and merchants and seamen,
who had been connected with her and thrived in riches by their inter-
course with her. To put the final seal upon her doom, an angel pre-
sents the symbol of a huge mill-stone, elevated and cast into the depths
of the ocean, while he declares that such shall be her fate. Chap. xviii.

Forthwith the shout of anticipated final victory rings through all the
heavenly world; which is thrice repeated. Immediately the King of
kings and Lord of lords appears at the head of the heavenly armies, and
marches forth to the great battle of God. almighty. The rapacious beasts
and birds are summoned from every quarter to glut themselves on the
corpses of the slain. The armies meet. The beast and false prophet
are taken alive, and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone; and Satan
is apprehended by a mighty angel, put in chains, and shut up in the
great abyss for a thousand years. Chap. xix. xx. 1—3.

Thus ends the second catastrophe. The heathen powers, which had
so long and bitterly persecuted. the church, are put down and wholly
subdued, and the church of God now enjoys a long season of prosperity
and peace, and diffuses itself over a great portion of the earth.

A sketch of this diffusion and prosperity (20: 4—6) forms a brief
proem to the third catastrophe ; thus varying the manner .of the writer
on former occasions of the like nature. Yet here the distant future only
comes into view, and everything is executed by a simple outline.

Satan, being loosed at the end of the thousand years, brings up Gog
and Magog, in number like the sands of the sea, against the camp of
the saints and their beloved metropolis. Fire falls from heaven and
consumes the host of the enemy, and Satan is cast into.the lake of fire
and brimstone; 20: 7—10.

It is plain, that the writer's main object has been completed antece-
dently to this last scene. Yet.the trichotomy of the book, and the na-
ture of the case, both demanded a rounding off of the whole in such a

&

190 § 10. ECONOMY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

way. The final triumphant—universally triumphant—position of the
church is thus exhibited; and the reader’s mind would have been less
satisfied, had this been omitted.

I cannot doubt, when the nature of the case and the plan of the wri-
ter are considered, that an interval is to follow between the destruction
of the last enemies of the church and the end of the world—a long in-
terval, in which many sons and daughters will be born to the Lord Al-
mighty. It is in this way, and in this only, that we can conceive of the
entire fulfilment of the promise, that “the seed of the woman should
bruise the serpent’s head.” In the Messianic portions of we:
tament, any attentive reader will perceive numerous passag here
similar intervals must beyond all doubt be supposed to exist, in order to
explain the phenomena when they are comprehensively viewed. The
old age of the world is doubtless to be peaceful and glorious, when
Satan and all his instruments of mischief shall cease to annoy the
church. .

The final destiny of the church triumphant still remains; and the
climactic course of the Epopee renders it inexpedient to omit this. Ac-
cordingly, the general resurrection and judgment are briefly introduced,
followed by a sketch of ultimate punishments and rewards. The former
are barely touched, but still they are touched with a master’s hand; 20:
14,15. The latter are dwelt upon with all the interest and rapture
which their nature and excellence demand. A new heaven and a new -
earth appear. The new Jerusalem comes forth in all the splendour of
the upper world, a dwelling place fit for the habitation of God and his
saints. In describing its ornaments and glories, the writer follows close
in the steps of Ezekiel (xl—xlviii.) in some respects; in others, he dif-
fers so much as to show that he was no mere imitator. A splendid de-
scription has he given us, and one adapted in all respects to excite in-
tense interest in the mind of the Christian reader.

An epilogue, in which the certainty of the things promised and pre-
dicted and the value and inviolability of the book are graphically set
forth, concludes the work.

I have called this work an Epopee, because it has all the leading quali-
ties of such a work—continued action of the deepest interest, wonderful
actors, great events, much display of imagination and fancy, poetry in
respect to its conceptions and diction, a general unity of design, and ca-
tastrophes of higher import and more thrilling interest than all the ca-
tastrophes of other epics united. It is useless to dispute about names ;
but I do not see how any one can show the impropriety of the name
that I have employed, merely from the fact that circumstantially the
Apocalypse differs from the Iliad, the Aeneid, or the Paradise Lost. I
allow that it is an Epopee sat generts,—a great moral Epopee—in which

§ 11. AESTHETICAL CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE. 191

are celebrated, not the deeds of an Achilles or of an Aeneas with their
associates, but of the King of kings and Lord of lords with his angels
and saints.

§ 11. Aesthetical character of the Apocalypse.

And now, what rhetorical judgment shall we pass upon the plan of
the writer and his execution of it? I am well aware, that those who
have but one measure which they can apply to all Epopees, and this a
measure that has been adjusted by the Iliad and the Aeneid, or by the
Parade Boe, will find but a moderate share of beauty and excellence
in the style and composition of the Apocalypse. But I take the liberty
boldly to protest against such a rule of judgment. It is neither equita-
ble nor liberal. Has there been no other standard of excellence ever
raised, except that which floats over the Iliad and the Aeneid? I most
readily concede the aesthetic excellence of these productions, in their
own way. But other minds have thought, and felt, and composed with
excellence, besides those of Homer and Virgil. The Revelation of
John is indeed an oriental, and not an occidental, performance. It is
specially adapted, as we should naturally expect, to the taste of oriental
readers. But why should we not make all due allowance for this? Isa-
iah is oriental too; but who in all the West, or in any other region, has
reached the sublimity and beauty of his strains? And should we not,
in deciding upon the execution of the plan of the Apocalypse and its
aesthetical merit, first make ourselves familiar with the feelings and
views and conceptions of the East? Common and impartial justice
would insist upon. this. And when tried by an appropriate measure,
John need not shrink from a comparison with any other writer.

Who are his actors? God; Christ; the blessed angels; the spirits
of the just made perfect; Satan and all the powers of darkness; the
church on earth, labouring, suffering, contending, pouring out its martyr-
blood ; the cruel and persecuting Jews ; the atrocious Nero, that incar-
nate fiend, who swayed the empire of the world, bade nations lie pros-
trate at his feet, and trampled upon and tore limb from limb every fol-
lower of Christ with whom he could meet; and finally, the innumerable
hosts of Gog and Magog from the ends of the earth, who encompass the
camp and city of the saints.

What is accomplished? The subjugation and utter destruction of all
enemies—of the Jews—of the heathen Romish persecutors—of the
more distant and barbarous heathen. The little, persecuted, despised
church, commencing with searcely more than could assemble in a moderate
house, extends, and extends, and waxes powerful, and becomes victori-
ous, until the world is filled with its triumphs and its peaceful dominion.

eR ee eee es ee ee pe ay eee en, pn

192 § 11. AESTHETICAL CHARACTER

And what is the prize of the victors in such a contest? Peace and
prosperity on earth, and thrones and crowns of glory in the world to
come.

In this great contest the weal or woe of all our race, even through
ages that have no end, is concerned. Never was such a contest ; never
such defeats on the one hand, nor such victories on the other, as the
Apocalypse exhibits. Its theme surpasses that of any and all other
epics, as much as the moral and spiritual nature of man rises above his
physical being, or the interests of eternity surpass those of time.

Such is the view, that a long acquaintance with the Apocalypse and
examinations of it often repeated have led me to form. T cannot de-
cide for others; but I may take it for granted, that they will not deny
to me the privilege of frankly giving my own opinion and the reasons
for it.

Nor am J alone in my aesthetical views of this book. Others who
have devoted much time to the study of it, have viewed it in a similar light.
Little more than sixty years ago, the credit of the Apocalypse among the
Protestant churches on the continent of Europe stood very low. Oeder
and Semler had attacked it with great violence, and even bitterness,
both in respect to its canonical authority and its style. As their neo-
logical views respecting the Scriptures generally, were’ soon extensively
adopted in Germany, the credit of the Apocalypse had sunk to such a
degree, that it was hardly deemed worthy of any strenuous effort in
order to explain it.

In this state of things Herder, who knew so well how to beautify and
adorn everything that interested him, took the book in hand. His
little volume which he called Maran Atha (the Lord will come) contains
a brief commentary on the Revelation, with a version; and these are
followed by an Essay on the plan, the style, the idiom, and the author-
ship of the book, with remarks on its original and present use and value.
Nothing which Herder has written more fully displays his talents, than
this short piece. His soul was filled with the visions of the Apoca-
lyptist, and he has poured forth its ample streams in the Critique which
he has composed.

He speaks first of' the language of the Hebrew prophets, after which
that of the Apocalypse is modelled. “They have,” says he, “all one
spirit, one design. One builds on another; one explains another; and
as gold have all been preserved. No imagery-language has remained
purer, or been better preserved ; none is in any measure so deeply im-

gecded in the genius of the people, its writings, and its idiom. Hebrew
poetry is as it were all symbol, imagery, holy and lofty diction. Even
the prose-writers and historians must needs speak in a tropical way,
because their language demands it; still more must this be done by

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 193

teachers and prophets. No language loves and furnishes imagery like
this. Here a fiery glance, there a breathing full of the spirit of the
Lord. In this way speak the Old and New Testament; and so speaks
the Apocalypse which contains the sum of both. - It is an anile fable,
that a peculiar. key belongs to it, or that the key is lost. Whoever
writes a book without an adequate key? Specially, who writes such an
one for seven churches? Did John attach a peculiar key to it, when
he sent it to them? How did it look? Who has seenit? How came
it to be lost? Is it in the sea near Patmos, or in the Maeander?
John writes a book for others—for many ; a book about whose contents
he was so seriously.anxious, that he arrays curse upon curse against
any one who detracts from it, and blessing upon blessing for him who
reads, hears, and obeys it; and yet this book is said to be an unintel-
ligible enigma, a kind of raving wholly sealed up, which no one except
its author can understand, and which even he himself perhaps did not
understand. Can anything be more absurd? But if it was intelligible
to Christians of that day, why not to us who have the Old Testament,
and the written testimony of Jesus, and the history to which this book
has reference? They lived amid the distresses of the times; they
must needs wait for the fulfilment of what was predicted, and therefore
could look upon the contents of the book only in the dimness of the
future ;- we live 1700 years after them, and in the most lucid era of his-
tory. Is the book fulfilled, (for it declares that its fulfilment will be
soon, quickly, without delay), then history must show its fulfilment.”
Maran Atha, p. 240 seq.

Thus much in respect to the figurative language of the book and its
alleged obscurity. The author proceeds, in a variety of ways, to ex-
hibit and defend the diction and plan of the Apocalypse, with much in-
genuity and eloquence. In the sequel he remarks : ‘ According to the
date given in the Apocalypse itself, it was the earliest work of John. . ..
To me it seems, that the style partakes of the most manly youthful
vigour of his mind. The language is here and there unconformed to
grammatical rule. But who does not know that all the language of
prophecy is full of this daring strength—of this lofty contempt of formal
rules? The gods do not speak like men; for even the heathen, in the
way of art, imitated what was a higher nature in the prophets—in-
spiration.” .

“But leaving the province of Grammar. . . who is there that does
not feel the divine (Osiov) of this book? Who does not even find the
book peculiar in this respect? I know of more than one, who does not
pretend to any intimate knowledge of its contents, and certainly would
undergo no martyrdom in defence of them, who still finds what he does
understand to be beautiful, and the whole costume and series of the im-

VOL. I. 25

194 § 11. AESTHETICAL CHARACTER

agery to be expanded and noble. Flower-wreaths from the poetry of
prophecy adorn the contents of this book, as fine linen does the bride,
as the heavenly cloud envelops the angel. Should I indulge myself in
the easy task of gathering parallel passages from the heathen poets,
the most powerful passages of imagery, either of Greeks or Romans,
when they speak of lustrations, consecrations, mysteries, theophanies,
and oracles, might be arrayed in the huge train of a vietory-show. Yet
T have still to say: Here is a country, a town, a sanctuary cleansed by
fire. On this spot there shoots up, in the’sacred councils of heaven,
the ark of the covenant, manna, the temple, white garments, the golden
branch of the tree of life, the tetradic number, the new inheritance, the
new mysterious Name, the Morning Star—all symbols of hidden and
mysterious things. The consecrated have passed through a sea of trial;
they bear palm-branches in their hands; within the inner sanctuary of
his temple, they sing a song which others cannot learn. ... What
selection of scraps from foreign poets could come in here, in order to
give the book a tasteful aspect. It puts all extracts from others to shame.
The true diamond borrows not its lustre from false ones. The bride in
fine linen needs none of the purple patches of a courtesan gaudily
adorned.” Ib. p. 320 seq.

Thus Herder ; and in like strain has he said much more in his critical
dissertation. The man that wrote the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, a book |
unsurpassed as to the laying open of the nature and genius of the He-
brew language and poetry, was surely well qualified to form a judgment
of the merits of the Apocalypse as to style and manner. If he is want-
ing in the profoundness and tact of a first rate philological interpreter,
yet he possesses aesthetical power in no ordinary measure.

Herder’s work checked the current of obliquy against the Apocalypse.
Kichhorn’s Commentary, published a few years afterwards, turned the
current back the other way. I shall quote more sparingly from him,
because his work is better known and more accessible among us, being
written in Latin. In his prefatory Dissertation (p. 28) he says: “In
adorning particular scenes and amplifying them with various and mani-
fold ornament, one can scarcely express himself adequately as to the
care, judgment, variety, abundance, and learning, which the author has
exhibited.” Speaking of the various agents introduced by the Apoc-
alyptist, he says: ‘One cannot well entertain any doubt as to the fer-
tile and almost inexhaustible genius of the poet in devising, adorning,
polishing, and amplifying. In furnishing and adorning places and
scenes he exhibits, indeed, and coiiverts to his own use, the rich trea-

F- gathered by the more ancient and the later Hebrew prophets and
riters, and an ample apparatus of things invented, ideal conceptions,
and imaginary views, which the genius of others had s=pplicd yet he

po

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 195

has not merely, exhibited them, he has exhibited them well and skilfully,
elegantly, strikingly, admirably, as became a poet endowed with large
gifts of intellect and genius and with well-regulated judgment. Nor is
even this all; he has changed, elaborated, adorned, amplified, altered,
and dignified with much cernicllae so that the style, adorned with
more art, moves on more ornate, elegant, and exquisite.” Ib. p. 30 seq.
Again, speaking of the writer’s choice of diction, he says: “ Nor is less
of care and refined judgment to be found in the poet, with respect to
choice of his words. The work, indeed, is prosaic as to form; yet by
its commendable and wonderful simplicity, by. its fictions or imaginary
scenes, by its abundance of imagery and phantasms, and by appropriate
things adapted to particular places or persons, or adjusted by special
numbers, the book approaches near to the poetic form of writing. ...
With every kind of imagery, as with luminous spots, the writer has dis-
tinguished his work, so that in describing things he appears as novel,
unusual, and splendid. ... But what is most worthy of note is, that in
the choice of words through the whole work he has employed such as
are most exquisite, most elegant, in every respect most accurately defin-
ed and circumscribed; so that it is impossible to withhold one’s praise
for nicety of judgment and circumspection. ... And since these things
are so, how can one help wondering, that our poet stands so ill with
many? Even his name excites disgust. He is accused of being one
of those, whose minds are in a state of hallucination, and who are not
far from mania. But surely one who acts the part of a poet not only
with so much of genius and learning, but also of art, care, caution, and
sound judgment, will appear to all candid and skilful judges of these
matters, much more worthy of praise than of invidious and contemptu-
ous appellations. But as art has no hater except the ¢gnoramus, so a
poet, who is so ingenious and learned and ornate, cannot have enemies
and despisers, unless they be those who are far removed from all due
perception of the ornate, the beautiful, the sublime, and the bold; or,
being destitute of any judgment of their own, they merely follow others
who have pronounced sentence against the work, although their own
praecordia were never formed of the better clay.” Ib. p. 40 seq.

It cannot be said now of either Herder or Eichhorn, that they were
carried away by any superstitious regard for the mysterious, or that their
judgment was warped by any special reverence for the Apocalypse as a
sacred book. Herder indeed concedes inspiration to the writer; but he
says somewhat more, probably, than he really means. So far as J can form
an estimate of his real views, the difference between John’s inspiration
and that of the heathen poets amounted in his estimation to this, ving
that John treated of a subject pure and sacred in its nature, and which
concergod the true God and the Christian church, while they chose sub-

%.
r ya

196 § 11. AESTHETICAL CHARACTER OF THE APOCALYPSE.

jects of romance and fable as their theme, in connection with all the ex-
travagances and superstitions of polytheism. In respect to this matter,
however, Herder appears to have been variable in his feelings and views ;
but Eichhorn held out his opinions plainly and frankly to the view of
the world, and treated the Apocaly erywhere as the mere offspring
of the poet’s genius and fancy. e were few men in Germany, for
the twenty-five years in which Eichhorn and Herder were in the zenith
of sacred criticism and of influence, that would have called in question
their aesthetical judgment; I think there are few anywhere, even now,
that are entitled to call it in question. By general consent, the aes-
thetical merit of the Apocalypse is now placed on a lofty niche in the
temple of genius, and those who deny it such a position, are in a fair
way to be classed among that party which Eichhorn has described in
the last sentence of the extract from him that is given above. ‘The
most laboured defence of the style and manner of the Apocalypse, may
be found in Eichhorn’s Hinleitung to this book; where, however, he at
the same time labours at length to support his view of its dramatical
character. With all his errors in respect to this point, he has inter-
mingled much that is true and striking with regard to the style of the
Apocalypse.

We might appeal to other and older witnesses, also, whose voice,
though heard long and widely in the Romish church, has as yet scateely
been listened to in the Protestant world. Bossver is a name which is
never mentioned without commanding respeet for learning, taste, and
talent, among all competent judges. Bossuet has written a Commen-
tary on the Apocalypse, full indeed of Romanism, but containing many
a shrewd remark; and some fine openings in respect to the scope of the
author. Let us listen for a moment to him, as speaking in his Preface:
“'Those who have any taste for piety find peculiar attraction in the ad-
mirable Revelation of Saint John. The name of Jesus Christ, with
which John commences in the'title, inspires one at the outset with holy
joy.... Everything corresp with this excellent title. Notwith-
standing the profound depths this divine book, one feels, in reading
it, an impression so sweet and altogether so sublime, of the majesty of
God; ideas so lofty of the mystery of Jesus Christ appear; a recogni-
tion of the people bought with his blood, is so lively ; the pictures of his
victories and of his dominion are so noble; the songs which celebrate
_ the greatness of these are so wonderful; that there is enough to ravish
all heaven and earth.... All the beauties of the Scriptures are concen-
trated in this book ; all that is most touching, most vivid, most majestic,
in the Law and in the Prophets, receives here a new splendour, and
passes again before our eyes, that we may be filled with the consolations
and the graces of all past ages... . In fact, here we find aga this

”

§ 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES. 197

apostle [John], the spirit of all the prophets, and of all the men com-
missioned by God. He has received the spirit of Moses, in order to
sing the song of the new deliverance of the holy people, of a new ark, a
new tabernacle, a new temple, and a new altar of incense. He has re-
ceived the spirit of Isaiah and of se so as to describe the plagues
of the new Babylon, and to astonish the universe with the noise of its
fall. It is by the spirit of Daniel that he has disclosed to us the new
beast, i. e. the new empire which is the enemy and persecutor of the
saints, with its defeat and ruin. By the spirit of Ezekiel he. has shown
us all the riches of the new temple, where God will be worshipped, i. e.
the riches of heaven and of the church. In fine, all the consolations,
all the promises, all the grace, and all the light of the divine books, are
united in this. All men inspired of God seem to have contributed for
it all which they possess of the rich and the magnificent, in order to
form the most beautiful picture of Jesus Christ which one can imagine ;
and we see nothing more clearly, than that he is truly the end of the
law, the reality of its symbols, the body of its shadows, and the soul of
its prophets.”

“Nor must any one imagine, when Saint John brings forward all
this, that he is a mere imitator of the prophets, his predecessors. All
which he cites from them he elevates; he even leads us to discover the
original itself of all the prophecies, which is none other than Jesus
Christ and his church. Borne onward by the same spirit which anima-
ted the prophets, he has penetrated their mind, he has defined their
meaning, he has revealed their mysteries, he has made the full glory of
Jesus Christ to diffuse its entire radiance.” Pref. p. 3 seq.

Bossuet, it will be perceived, has exhibited more of the Christian,
and less perhaps of the rhetorician, than Herder or Eichhorn. « It is
well however to combine both, for the book before us unites them.
How Luther could ever have rejected the Apocalypse, and thrust it
from the canon, because, as he alleges, ‘i: as no Christ in it,” is more
than we can well explain. The Romanist has, in respect to this mat-
ter, seen with much clearer vision than the Protestant.

§ 12. Hermeneutical Principles necessary to.the proper interpretation of
the Apocalypse.

There is one plain and obvious question, which every interpreter of

the Apocalypse is bound to ask, viz. For what purpose was this book

“written? That is: Was it written to be read and understood by those

to whom it was addressed; or was it intended for an enigma, which no
Oedipus for centuries to come should be able to solve ?

If the ee were one of mere play of imagination or fancy ; if the

. hie AA

x
198 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

writer designed merely to amuse his readers by the brillianey of his
poetical conceptions, or to puzzle them with the ingenuity of conun-
drums ; if, in a word, his aim was merely to excite admiration, or won-
der, or to make his contemporaries stare at him on account of his sin-
gularity or his mysticism, like Goethe in his Faust; then it would be of
little avail to speak of principles of interpretation. Interpretation, in
the sober and rational sense of the word, would be fairly out of ques-
tion. More than this also we might well say ; for we might truly affirm,
that the book would not be worth the trouble of a serious effort to in-
terpret it.

To my own mind, however, it seems to be quite plain, that no great-
er injustice could be done to any book, than to consider the Apocalypse
in such alight. If there is any book in the New Testament that has
the aspect of sincerity, of earnestness, and of deep feeling ; of high spirit-
ual sympathy for the welfare of the church; of glowing zeal for the in-
terests of the kingdom of God; of unceasing and all pervading gratitude
to Christ, for what he has done and suffered to save our sinful race ; of
heart-felt solicitude for the constancy and spiritual fidelity of Christians ;
of trembling concern for such as are tempted to apostatize ; of confident
hope as to the final triumph of truth and righteousness ; and of unsha-
ken faith in the glories of the upper world, which are consequent upon -
obtaining a mansion in the paradise of God—if there is any book that
belongs to the New Dispensation, on whose very face all these things
are enstamped in characters of light, the Apocalypse is that book. ‘ He
that runneth may read’ all this. And if this be truae—denied it cannot
well be—then here is no book of mere fancies, no tissue of enigmas, no
mysticism designed only to amuse or perplex. No, not a real trace of
all this. The writer was in downright and most sober earnest, if ever
the world saw such a writer. On such subjects the sacred writers do
not trifle. They are serious; gravely in earnest; full of feeling; car-
ried away (it may be) with their subject, and rapt into the world of
imagination, by a state of mind which is struggling for adequate ex-
pression and imagery, but which cannot find them so as to answer all
its purposes in the world of realities, and is therefore sometimes forced
beyond ordinary bounds in quest of them. Such is most palpably the
character of him who wrote the Apocalypse. To read the book, and
not to discover all this, not to see it diffused over every portion of it, :
would be nothing less than to traverse the whole ground with a bandage
over one’s eyes, or to survey it all through a dark or discoloured me-
dium, which mars the beauty and vivid tints that are diffused over every
prospect.

Must we not say, then, that an interpreter should begin his exegesis
of the Apocalypse, with a deep and abiding conviction that, he is en-

&.
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 199

gaged ina serious business, and that all jeawa d’esprit arising from levity
of mind, or disrespectful views of the contents of the book, are equally
unbecoming and uncandid? The witticisms, or rather the meagre at-
tempts at witticism, which may be met with in Oeder, Corrodi, and
some others, disgust one not less by their want of good taste than by
their irreverence. Suppose any one should take Milton’s Paradise
Lost in hand, and find some expression or image in it which does not
agree with his own taste, and then should fall to jeering and scofling at
the book or the author; what should we say of him? And yet here, in
the Apocalypse, is a higher theme than Milton’s, if higher there can be ;
and here is a book which treats of it, by presenting a series of symbols
such as never before were presented, in which God, and Christ, and good
angels, and spirits of darkness, and all that is good and bad on earth,
are actors, and are represented too as performing their respective parts
in an appropriate manner—and shall an interpreter undertake to jeer
and scoff? Such a picture needs only to be once looked at, in order to
make a proper estimate of it.

But to return ; the Apocalypse, we say, is a book that was written
for a serious purpose, for an immediate effect (not excluding a remoter
one), and for a highly important end. It was sent to the seven leading
churches of Asia Minor. Did the writer wish and expect them to un-
derstand it? How can there be but one answer to this? He did ex-
pect to encourage, console, admonish, and instruct them, and all others
likewise who in like circumstances should read it; and if so, he of course
expected to be understood. ;

We might’ well ask, then, with Herder: ‘Was there a key sent with
the book, and has this been lost? Was it thrown into the sea of Pat-
mos, or into the Maeander?’ No; no key was sent, and none was lost.
The primitive readers, I mean of course the men of intelligence among
them, could understand the book; and e we for a short time in
their places, we might dispense with nmentaries upon it, and

the theological romances which have ¢ of it, that have made
their appearance from the time of John’s exile down to the present
hour.

In their places, however, we cannot exactly put ourselves. Their

- language is not ours. ‘Their circle of objects, their imagery, their modes

= of thinking, their culture, their circumstances, are and must be in some

measure foreign to us. All that remains is, by the aid of helps which

antiquity furnishes, to approximate as nearly to their situation as may

be. ‘The nearer we come, the more certain we are to understand the
Apocalypse.

As I have already had occasion to say, there are but two ways in

which aaygprcient writing, either sacred or profane, is now to be inter-

&
200 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

ee The one is, by a use of the ordinary means of exegesis ; the
other, by supernatural aid, i. e. by spiration. Who now lays claim to
the latter? Some such there have been, and may be. But who allows
the right to such a claim? Only enthusiasts and men that are misled.
We come then to the simple principle, that the Apocalypse, like all other
books, must be interpreted by the aid of helps and principles like to those
which are employed in the interpretation of other books. Whatever
there is in it which is intelligible, must be understood in this way ; and
(may we not add?) may be understood in this way.

To go into minutiae here, in respect to the interpretation of particular
passages, would be entirely beyond my present aim. My object is mere-
ly to give a brief sketch of radical principles, from which we cannot
depart without a certainty that we shall fall into error.

(1) It is now agreed, as has more than once been stated, that the
Apocalypse i is a book of poetry: Not that it is rhythm, or composed in
heroic verse ; but still it is essentially, in its very mode of conception,
plan, and diction, a poetic work. Poetry is the characteristic of nearly
all Hebrew prophecy ; and why should not the Apocalypse, written by
a Hebrew, be poetic : ? And if it be, all the rules and principles which
apply to the figurative language, the allegory, the symbol, the peculiar
diction of poetic prophecy, must be applied to the interpretation of the
Apocalypse.

(2) In connection with this stands another highly important consider-
ation. Oriental poetry and certainly the Hebrew, follows out the de-
tail of symbol and allegory, for the sake of verisimilitude and in order
to give vivacity to the representation, much beyond what we are accus-
tomed to do in the western world. How much, now, of this detail is to be
regarded as significant of sentiment, and as the exponent of instruction,
is a matter that of necessity must always be left to judgment and taste.
No exact technical rules can. be laid down for the limitation of this mat-
ter. But the Apocalypse does not stand alone, in respect to its demands
for such a principle of interpretation. In nearly all the parables of the
Saviour, there is a necessity for the application of the same principle.
Take, for example, the parable of the good Samaritan. What is the
object? To inculcate the love of benevolence toward our fellow beings,
whatever may be their relations to us, or however they may have been
viewed by our prejudices. What now are the circumstances in the
parable which answer the mere purpose of verisimilitude, and which we
are not to thrust into the fore-ground of the picture, when the painter
has placed them in the back-ground ? They are such as these; the
direction of the man who travels, viz., from Jerusalem toward Jericho ;
his falling among thieves and being robbed; the Samaritan’s setting
him on his own beast ; his bringing” him ‘to an inn; his departure on

+

APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 201

the morrow; his leaving two pence, etc. Not one of all these circum
stances is essential to the gist of the parable, because each and all of
these particulars might be, or not be, i. e. might be exchanged for others,
and yet the traveller be presented as a poor sufferer and in need of
friendly aid. The great principle inculcated would be the same, if any
or all of the circumstances just mentioned had been omitted, or changed,.
and the story had consisted of a simple statement that might have been
made, perhaps, by a single sentence. But then, the beauty, the viva-
city, the verisimilitude, the impressiveness, of the whole parable—what
would have become of these? They would have been sacrificed.

So.is it.in regard to many circumstances in other parables of Jesus ;
and so is it everywhere in respect to the symbols and allegories of the
Hebrew prophets. So it must of course be in the Apocalypse, which
treads so closely in their steps. Of all the qualifications needed by an
interpreter of this book, none stands more conspicuous, none can be
more needed, than the power of discriminating, with sound judgment
and good taste, between what is essential and primary, and what is
secondary and belongs merely to the congruity of the symbols. It is by
mixing and confounding these, and by mistaking the one for the other,
that nearly all the shipwrecks have been made, which have befallen
many of those who have embarked on this ocean. —

It were easy to illustrate this by examples, but where should I begin,
or where end? I may, however, specificate one.or two cases, in order
to make the subject plain. In chap. vi. is a picture of a dread array,
marshalled against the enemies and persecutors of the church. The
latter are to be assailed with war and famine and pestilence, or at least
by the agents of destruction ; and their fall is certain. All this is shown
by successive symbols. A conqueror on a white horse, the symbol of
victory, leads the van. Then follows a red horse, the symbol of blood,
and his rider brandishes a drawn sword. Next comes a black horse,
the emblem of mourning and distress, and his rider is furnished with
balances, which are nicely to adjust by. ight the necessaries of life;
this indicates famine or scarcity of food. —

The rear is brought up by
the king of terrors, accompanied by ghosts from the world beneath. All
this is plainly one army, gathered for one purpose, and furnished for
the exercise of awful power. Blood, famine, and pestilence, i. e. the
means of destruction, are to waste the enemy. When or by whom, is
not the question here. A particular answer to these questions would be
detail, which would mar the outline-picture. It is one and a simple
picture, merely composed of parts which have a unity of design; and
one cannot view it simply in this light, without an involuntary awe.
Yet what have some, and even most, interpreters done? They have
assigned to the leader and conqueror one place and to his army another ;
vOut.’ 26

?

202 §.12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

they have imagined different countries, and even remote and separate
ages, as the where and the when of Hest peop symbols. Famine
prevails in one country, pestilence in another, the wild beasts in another,
and war in another ;. and all this, without any particular relation, or in-

deed any relation at all, to the speedy destruction of the enemy who are
before the eye of the seer. Can al te be more incongruous, more

palpably mistaken, more clearly in bad t ore repugnant to the true
nature of the symbols employed ? eas conceptions of what
John ought to reveal, had not taken the d in such interpretations,
they never could have been devised.

Let us take qpothetypzamply from Rev. xiv» To any one who has
attentively studied and analyzed the contents of the Apocalypse, it must
be evident. that chap. xiv. is episode. All which is intended by the
symbols there exhibited, is merely to indicate the certainty of “es
over the beast, the false prophet, and Satan their instigator or leader.
Hence the scene opens with exhibiting the Lamb, at the head of -.
144,000 who had ‘been sealed in their foreheads, and redeemed fro
fierce and cruel persecutions—which redemption was a sure pledge of
‘power to save, and of faithfulness in performing promises. How dear
all faithful a. to the great Head of the church, is next shown
in few but very e sive words.: Other symbols in the sequel, further’
confirm what is intimated by this leading scene. ‘An angel, flying
through mid-air, proclaims the universal spread of the gospel. Another
angel proclaims the fall of great Babylon. A third declares the dread-
ful end of all who partake in her idolatry. A voice from heaven re-
sponds, and declares the blessedness of all who shall be faithful martyrs
to the truth. What has thus been done, first by symbol and then by
proclamation, is, after the manner of the book, done as it were a third
time by the employment of new and different symbols. The earth
is represented as a great harvest-field speedily to be reapedgygtihen
as being reaped; and finally, as presenting a vast vintage, t usters
of which are cut off with ‘the pruning-knife and gathered together.
These are cast into a wine-press, and a dark fluid, the symbol of blood,
flows out to a great distance.

- Who now that attentively considers all this, does not perceive that
there is an entire wnity of design in the whole chapter? And this design
is neither more nor less than to give assurance, that the beast and all
his coadjutors are about to be destroyed. Well may the writer ex-
claim, as he does: “ Here is the patience of the saints!’ That is, here
is abundant reason for the saints to be patient and submissive, for trials
and persecutions must abound; but here is encouragement for them,
also, inasmuch as these trials will come to a speedy end. The downfall
of the persecuting power and of all its allies, is absolutely certain.

« 2"

Rs

af

APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 203

shall we say, now, to those interpreters, who seek for historical
events and facts, in remote ss mi are to be the fulfilment of these
so-called predictions? What defence can be made for converting episode
into the main body of the work—for converting mere symbols of strong
assurance that the beast will be overcome, into representations of actual
battles, into pictures of veritable historical events? No adequate de-
fence can be made for this eeding, either at the bar of reason or of
taste. Nothing short of onitine s the true structure of the book and
the mutual relation of its parts, can lead-an interpreter to such an exe-
gesis as this. Yet how often has this been done !

Is it not just and proper, then, to insist that an interpreter of the Ajpoc-
alypse should have a due regard to the. nature of symbols, and learn, if
aa how much of them belongs to the fore-ground, and how much

e back-ground, of. the picture? The principle is too plain to be

in question, and too important to be neglected. te i,
¥ Scarcely if at all inferior in point of importance to either of
preceding hermeneutical principles, as they respect the Apocalypse,

‘is the plain and obvious ‘principle, that GENERIC, and not specific and
individual, representations are ce be sought for in the book before us. .

No one principle of ‘interpretation has been 50 often and so palpably
violated in the: exegesis of the Apocalypse, as this. In all-cases of the
like nature in the Old Testament, we find only generi¢ pictures, (if I
may be allowed the expression), and not minute drawings of individu-
alities. If the reader doubts this for a moment, let him turn back and
reperuse § 2. above, where a synoptical view of the Messianic prophe-
cies is given. Almost the only exception in -all these, to the principle
of generic representation, is the single case where the sufferings and
death of Christ are depicted, as in Ps. xxii. and Is. litii Why now
should the whole character of predictions, respecting the Christian
church, | ntirely changed in the New Testament; and in cases, too,
where subject and object are the obey asin the Old? How

can it be imagined that John, who follows everywhere so closely in the
steps of the Hebrew prophets, should so entirely depart from them in
regard to this particular? . There must be some good reason in order to
render this credible ; and such a reason has not yet been proffered. It
is the great and leading concerns of the church, and those only, which
are sketched in the Apocalypse. How could the writer, in the compass
of so few pages, undertake to detail all the minute events of future
ages, both those which belong to the church, and also to civil communi-
ties? It was impossible.

If it be said, that still he may have sketched out some of the most
striking and prominent events with some good degree of individuality ;
where in the Apocalypse, I would ask, are such sketches to be found?

204 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

vidually applied; e.g. of the beast, and of the false prophet. But
when he comes to ‘symbolize the downfall of these, all is in the most
general way ; as any one may see, who will read the 16th and 19th chap-
ters of the Revelation.

But a multitude of expositors are not co. mpont with finding even mi-
nute ecelesiastical aagers in the he pse. They must needs find

Characteristics he does indeed draw, “an th which may be indi-

d te earthquak idagiben

verte a evil of civil and er “ohne

Sac: ; are all
wi 3 con-
oy
‘2 cana man of sober discretion, who has e

vi fr
, give ear to all this? An expositor Vs

op
ob the description of a certain war, ofa articular famine, or o
pestilence, all of which took place centuries after the book was written
On what ground does ‘he defend this view? On the ground that the
~ are. things in apocalyptic picture, which, in his opinion, tally well
witlhthe subsequ ae in question. Let i we will concede
that there are t hich might tally, if the au 3: design and

context would permit us to make such an application. But is these do»

not permit it, what shall we then say to interpr n so conducted ?~
The misfortune in this case is, that what applies to this particular bat-

ae
a

tle, or that famine, or pestilence, would apply equally well to every bat- 4

waste, from the days of John down to the pr hour. Who then can
choose between all these conflicting claims ? the author has assigned

neither time nor place, who can fix on these for him ? © If has, then

tle that has been fought, and every famine re peo that have laid

he alone is to be consulted, in order to know what battle, o: 5 or
pestilence, he has alluded to. The context is the only arbiter, most
evidently, which can settle such questions. My belief is, that in a gene-
ral way the writer of the Apocalypse has settled them. And this is
enough. It is all that would be safe and profitable to the church; it is
all that is needed for spiritual instruction and consolation.

I say for spiritual instruction ; and in so saying I mean to be under-
stood as designing to imply, that any other kind of instruction would be
inapposite to the occasion of writing such a book, and also to the design
of the-author. Otvil history! Andis the Apocalypse, then, a book for
the consultation of politicians, in regard to their schemes, and the proba-
ble success of them? Does it tell them what kingdom will triumph, and
what will fall, in the contest of arms? Is it a book written for such a
purpose as the heathen oracles were uttered? Are men to resort to it,

ts
*-

tune-teller by such a process as is here proposed ?”
in the way of dete > general ground on ‘‘
interpretation of ic symbols, that. the. overthre

Re:
“ *

APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 205

~

worldly nature? - No; this is dream.. John was no chronicler of —
civil events. He was no soothsayer, like those of Delos and of Delphos.
Such things, and such only, as relate to the spiritual welfare and pros-
perity of the church, are the objects of his prophetic vision... Whoever
finds: mere civil history me must make it from his own fancy and

in order to gratify their tli about future events of a mere

imagination; he cannot ded rom the text of John in a ni phi-
lological manner. /*

Almost everything depends, in many parts of the Apocalypse, on the
observance ¢ eanon of interpretation which we are now discussing.
Yet. there se minds, 'th g of duly appreeiat-

to pane C
ing a —S uld tell them, af ll which is symbol-
rae aie especting war fa ar famine, and pestilemay, (sup ie the

per alte are the object of the prediction), it would b ia
]

s Koll events in a literal way, in order to find
- prophecy, they;would exclaim with strong emotion: ‘ What!
t no reality, then, to Pe looked for as associated with these path
s in thé way of fulfilment ? not John a into a mere for-
. ould/one. still add,

stands in 1
1d downfall of
the: persecuting enemy is the substance of the prediction before us; that
the way and manner in. which this is accomplished cannot be of much
importance to the church, so long as the event itself is certain; that the
symbols of war, and famine, and pestilence, are here employed, merely

because they are the usual instruments in destroying the power of hos-

tile nations; that it is alta se ther natural and proper to employ them in

- order to make a lively yoett sentation of the subject in hand; and that if

tine, complete stop to the persecutions there carried on, chap.

vi. of the Apocalypse would have been as truly fulfilled as it has now
been; that ifeven other means than war and famine and pestilence had
accomplished the same ends, there would have been a virtual fulfilment
of the predictions ; and of course, that the generic idea of humbling, and
subduing, and disarming, and punishing. the persecuting enemy, is all
that can be important to the church in the predictions before us—I say,
if all this were to be alleged in answer to him who seeks for and confi-
dently expects milthte, specific, and individual events in prophecy, I see
not what answer he could give; although it may be doubted whether all
this would bring conviction with it to his mind, specially in case he had
already pledged himself to a particular and favorite interpretation of a
very different tenor. I do not indeed, for myself, regard the symbols of
the ‘Apocalypse i in quite so abstract: a light as this; but if events had

‘some dp ha empl the Roman had overrun and subjugated Pales-

206 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRS Onn

shown them to be so, I should not feel the least difficulty with regard to
the real and substantial fulfilment of the prediction before us.

In my apprehension, it is from an abuse of the principle in question,
that most of the flagrant errors committed in the interpretation of the
Apocalypse have arisen, in modern times. The imagery and the sym-
bols of this book are mostly of such a generic nature, that there is no
difficulty in making them apply, if one is determined so to do, to almost
any leading events that have affected the church, either in more remote
ages or in more recent times. The characteristics for example of the
beast, although, when compared throughout and viewed collectively, they
cannot with any good degree of philological | mer applied to
any other than the heathen, Roman, persecuting power, will no doubt
apply, at least many of them, to the like ecclesiastical power in later
ages. » The Protestant interpreter lays hold of) this circumstance, and
with great zeal, and it may be with much sincerity and | of pur-
pose, applies it to the Pope and his persecuting allies coadjutors.
How far the circumstance, that the description of the beast answers in
many particulars to him and his allies, and that some important adyan-
tages in argument may accrue to the Protestant in consequence of mak-
ing such an appli ation, may go in persuading him that this is a-correct
mode of exegesis, and inducing him to adopt and urge it, is forcibly il+

lustrated by the case of Luther. This Reformer, when he published _

his German translation of the New Testament, thrust the Apocalypse
from the canon, and printed it merely in the way of an Appendix, and
as an apocryphal book. His main reasons were; that the book was un-
intelligible, and that there was “no Christin it.’ Subsequent critics,
more keen-sighted in exegesis than Lat in, or thought that they
had found, good reason for applying John’s description of: the beast to
the Pope and his adherents. “As the contest waxed warmer, Luther
perceived the advantage of such an ally; and it was nofageee><fore
consent was given to a reception of the Apocalypse. Thus the book
was restored to its place of honour at the close of the canon, and John
was converted into one of the most formidable assailants of the Romish
camp. :

What now was done, on the other hand, by the opponents of Luther
and the Reformation? They speedily found the beast in Luther, and
the false prophet in Calvin. They also discovered, that even the name
of the beast, as indicated by the number 666, was to be found in Lu-
ther’s original proper name. Arguments, ne tied were, were not
lacking on the part of the Romanists. Feuardentius has given us a
specimen of them, in his note upon the famous passage in Irenaeus
(V. 30) respecting the name of the beast. ;

Who now has the better in such a contest? The Romanists haye ar-

»

NK

...

_done on the part of heaven, at the time of John and

*%
APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 207

rayed great learning on their side, as well as the PudMetanits Which
of them shall we trust? My feelings would certainly lead me to side
with the Protestants; and I doubt not that they have the better side in
the argument; if indeed either side can be said to have the better, when
neither is in the right. In truth, the Romanists have so little of even
the show of argument in this case, that one can scarcely bring himself
to believe that they are in ear Neither Calvin nor Luther had do-
minion over the city of seven hills, nor were they engaged in promoting
idol-worship. How could they then be the beast and the false prophet ?
But, on the ge hand, nothing is mong certain in all the Apocalypse,
than that a heathenish idolatrous power is Poorivedte Rev. xiii. seq., '&
power that was then persecuting the church. If this 2% be nogelear,
then Fhe we absolutely despair of making anything clea by exegesis,

out of the book before us. ® "
T should more to say on this subject, if this were the rongioed
place. As it is not, I must content myself with merely observing, that
ae which I have taken of the Apocalypse in the preceding pages,
is one which will make a part ofgphis book: applicable in one sense to
papal Rome, or to any eles power, which may lay a hands upon
Christians, and contend against the progress of the 1. What was
eedily after, in

- order to defend the truth and promote the extension of the Redeemer’s

kingdom, is the model of what will be ma all succeeding ages for
the like purpose. So far as the Pope and his adherents imitate the

~ original beast and false prophet, or so far as Protestants do what injures

the church, so far they come under sentence and condemnation like to
that which was reed son the beast. The analogy of God’s
dealings with his. church renders it certain, that hindrances thrown
in the way of. it, - ee they may be, will be removed. If excision
mes necessary, it will take place. ‘The doom of all that

of enemies

opposes itself to the progress of true religion, is sealed by the Apoca-

lypse. So far Protestants are plainly in the right. All that is want-
ing, then, to show that the downfall of Romanism is virtually foretold by
John, is to show that Romanism resembles the beast and the false pro-
phet. But when I say, that its downfall is virtually predicted in the
Apocalypse, I must not be understood as affirming, that John himself
had the papal hieraggby definitely in view, when he wrote this book. I
do not see any way in which this can be rendered exegetically probable.
John wrote to console dmonish and encourage the churches, then
bleeding at every pore under the glittering weapons of a blood-thirsty
tyrant. And what does he do in order to accomplish his purpose? He
assures the churches that this dreadful contest is not always to continue.
Ere long victory will perch on the banners of the cross. The church

208

# sides
will not become extinet by all (whi rise from
its ruinous state, will expand, i world phs, and 7
v
.

prostrate in the rie AN sca ‘o crown all, he
looks with’a prophetic eye throug the vista of t ages, and sees
that the setting sun of the church militant, and the old age of the —
in which it dwells, will be glorious; and finally, that the new Jerusal 4
will be her abode throngh ages that haye no end. Short i
mere outlines, are the descriptions of all that belongs to the
‘ture. But they serve to finish the picture which John 0 ci
thus to complete the measure of consolation and x, *
he designed to administer. mn
How can we, then, when such a design ha aadinds Pie accom-
plishing it stand out with marked prominen this picture—how can
we attribute to John a mere syllabus of the civil and ecclesiastical his-
toryof remote ages, a history of civil commotions and.tamults, or the
mere description of literal famines and pestilences, of earthquakes and
of tempests? In the name of all that is pertinent and as in
prophecy, I ask, what have these todo with the object which had
before him? Or are we, as some have slily hinted, to regardshim as in
a state of hallucination when he wrote the Apocalypse? Or if any
one alleges that some notice of the great apostasy imi the chureh was ”
surely to be expected, then may I ask again: In what way could it
either console or encourage John’s readers, to be told that at some fa-
ture day a great part of the church would become heretical, or act the
part of apostates, and persecute and destroy true Christians as badly as
the heathen were then doing? And is thi ‘ory to poor fainting
spirits, filled with dread lest the light of e truth might be quenched
in the blood of its friends, and anxious for one ray of hope that the
church would yet rise and triumph over all its enities ? It would in
fact seem not unlike some degree of hallucination, to engage in making
such disclosures, with the expectation of reviving the drooping spirits ef
suffering Christians by them. It is out of reasonable question) then,
that we should take, and be able to ns such ayview of this subject
as the popular exegesis demands. In truth, it requires us virtually to
set aside the idea, that John had in view any present, important, and
appropriate object in the writing of his book; or if he had such an ob-
ject in view as appears to lie upon the face of th , then, according
to the exegesis which we are controverting, he took the strangest course
imaginable in order to accomplish it, i. e. yee a syllabus of the
civil and ecclesiastical history of distant ages, the highest end of which,
in respect to those whom he addressed, could be only to gratify their
prurient historical curiosity. A
Such a view of the book will not bear a sober examination. ‘It is too

.

# ® ;
i "APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 209

improbable, incongruous, and inapposite to the necessities of the times.
A church bleeding at every pore, and ready to faint or to apostatize
—such a church addressed by a: grave writer who has a superin-
tendence over its concerns—and merely or principally told what things
will happen in distant future ages, things civil, ecclesiastical, and even
appertaining to the natural world, most of which were to be developed
a thousand years or more after all the members of that church were
dead! Nothing short of the most express testimony of John himself,
that he meant to address them in such a strain, ought to satisfy us that
he has done it.

What other book in all the Bible do we allow to be treated in this
way by interpreters? Do we not insist, that they shall inquire with
great diligence and. accurately investigate, what the special and appro-
priate object of each writer was? And in respect to each separate part
of any book, 1 not dependent on the rest, if such there be, is not the same
inquiry to be urged with all possible earnestness and diligence? It is
even so. How can it be aceounted for, then, that when we come to the
Apocalypse, every process of this nature should be dispensed with, and
we should betake ourselves to guessing. on which of its many sides a
certain die must fall? What has become, all at once, of the scope, the
ctrcumstances, the immediate obj ect, the exigencies, of the writer of this
book? Were there no such things? Or is the book a mere jeu d’es-
prit, an effort to amuse, a romance full of enigmas designed to puzzle
the reader? Away with all such surmises ! Y And away, too, I must in
sober earnest say, with all the expositions that are built upon them!
It is a degradation of a dagine, book to treat it in such a manner. And
when we are called on to accede to any exposition of this book, which
is altogether reckless of the occasion, the object, and the immediate de-
sign of the writer, we are not permitted, by any proper regard to the
laws of hermeneutics, to listen to such an exposition. Why should we
set ourselves afloat upon a boundless ocean of conjecture and fancy,
without rudder or compass ? The demand to do so is unreasonable.
We are not bound in any sense, philological, exegetical, theological, or
reasonable, to listen to requisitions of this nature, much less to be guided
by them,

(4) There are some other subordinate considerations, which have a
bearing on the interpretation of the Apocalypse, that deserve a distinct
notice. ran

(a) The book, as we have seen, is a species of the Epopee—different,
in this respect, from any other prophetic book in the whole Scriptures,
and resembling in part, i. e. as to the method of its structure, the book
of ‘Job, the Epopee of the Old Testament. We must, therefore, make
all the allowances which are due to such a method of composition.

VOL. I. 27

«

210
Why should we not do here, what,we do in all

pee may have, not towsay must are its episoc
in ¢

may allow them to exist here, in case the composi
cannot de ubt it does), that they should be allowed .
strained Ke in resorting to egesis founded on such a, sup-_ .
position or assumption. Have not the Mad, the Aeneid, the Paradise» *
Lost, and other poems of the like nature, their episodes ? m , 4
over, are not all critics ready to allow them? Why then sho
thought strange, that an interpreter of the Apocalypse should cla ‘.
like concession for this book ? ° Y a,

(6) There is another circumstance of a kindred nature, which ‘de-
serves notice in this connection. It is a fact, that although ar the »
greatest portions of the Apocalypse are of a ali: nature, Bm -
fore have principal reference to the future, yet some of it must be re-
garded as regressive, i. e, as bringing before the mind what is already
past. Omitting smaller and mere circumstantial passages of this nature,
I would refer particularly to chap. xii, the whole of which, as
to me, must be looked upon in the light now,stated. The writer is here
passing to a new theme—his second great rastrophe. Tn the arrange-
ment of his first catastrophe, he has presented us with a magn r
proem—the theophany and the vision of the sealed at To repeat

that theme again, at the commencement of his second trophe, would. —.
not be a display of that sagacity which he has where so abundantly
manifested. He resorts, therefore, toa new subje He is ut to
introduce a combination of immeasurably the most powerful enemies of
the church that had yet appeared, who are very much embittered against
it. His proem casts light on the origin ef their state of mind, and on
the source of the peculiar and malicious activity which was in operation
against Christianity. Satan, the great enemy of all good, who had
ruined the first Adam, had done his utmost to accomplish the destruc-
tion of the second. A jealous and cruel king is excited by him to de-
stroy all the children at Bethlehem, in order to cut off the infant Sa-
viour. The Apocalyptist, however, e ly notic nly the ageney
of Satan. The mother of the infant ees to the wilderness, and
finds there a place of refuge. What is this but the flight of Mary with
her newly born child, before the massacre by Herod? When this child *.
is “caught up to God,” Satan and his coadjutors follow him in their
rage, and assay to enter the upper regions in the pursuit. But Michael
and his angels come forth to battle against them, and they are defeated
and cast down to the earth. Stung with rage and disappointment, Sa~
tan, finding all efforts of this nature to be unavailing, falls to persecuting
the church with unrelenting fury. In this state of things co 3
the combined action of Satan, the beast, and the false prophet ; which

wo “APOCALYPSE. 211

bell” mo as respect either to the present,
or is pros) us rtains to t en futures

% ie vay the ‘e of the A calypse has, with no Tittle. tact and

, introduced the actors in t Bond | great ca. ae Specific

—_ ©... of persons or nations he. not give, at first; but in the pro-

. of the work, an episode (chap. Xvi.) is devoted to the purposes

> dC) oo The whole representation taken together could hardly

; “fail to leave a correct impression on the mind of Christian readers then
» i living, as to the class of persecutors whom the writer meant to design

~ In circumstances like these, and for purposes such as have be
named, what objection, on the score of propriety and relevancy, can be
ie made uinst a ee as chap. xii, which is regressive? Is it not
_ Ee , that’in nea ll the prophecies of the Old Testament, which
} are of any considerable length, there is more or less of allusion to the
past, and recounting of it? Surely this cannot be denied. Why then
uld we refuse to John a liberty that we concede to other prophets?
And above all, why should we deny him such a liberty, when his work
is far ore extended and complicated, and more nicely arranged by the
€ ~ rules of art, than any other single prophetic composition in all the Bi-
ble? easonable criticism cannot well withhold its consent to such an.

arrangement. . ge .

(c) The circumstance, that the last part of the book briefly adverts
to tego distant J re, cannot be brought as an objection against
the s above exhibited, respecting the more immediate object of the

Apocalypse, and the urgent necessities of the times which called it into
being. | +o

The critical reader of the old Testament prophecies cannot fail

to call to mind, that a great number of them close with Messianic

_ views, that is, with prospects of the then distant future. This is, one

might almost say, the habitual order of Isaiah’s prophecies ; and not un-

paid it is to be found elsewhere. But when John wrote, the Mes-

ic age had begun. cnn future must therefore be of another

kind. It is not then the ncement, but the close, of the Messianic

period, which he has developed in the concluding part of his work. In

so doing, it will be perceived that he has only followed the like path
es with the prophets who had preceded him. To them the opening of the
Messianic period, and specially its full bloom in the Millennium, was

the highest part of the climax which the mind could then well reach.

Such a future condition of things, was an almost indescribable advance

beyond the state of things then present. With Jobn, as with the older

phets, the millennial state still belongs to the distant future, and is

arranged accordingly ; but the final rest of the people of God from all

the assaults of enemies, and the consummation of their happiness in the

—

*

a
’ i,
*
212 $12. HERMENEUTICAL PRI : a
world of light and love, are advances beyond preceding cee Mere
hints concerning this are all that-can be foun in th ne writers 5

but in the work of John a development is made, whic , though brief
because it belongs to the distant future, is still tid. pic picture which to
the eye of a beholder stands out, as it were, from the canvass.

But the reader would greatly mistake the matter, if he should suppose
for a moment, that all this is so arranged in order merely to follow the
example of the ancient prophets. The fact plainly is, that scarcely any-
thing i in the Apocalypse, indeed we may say, nothing produces so much

excitement on a true-hearted reader, as the brief sketch which the wri- |

ter has made of the distant future. Tt was to the poor, suffering, and
bleeding martyr, like the sun rising in all his splendor upon a region of
tempest and of darkness ; or like the same sun arising upon a benighted
mariner, who has been tossed upon the mountain-wave and driven by
fierce winds until the roar of breakers begins to be heard. ‘The Apoca-
lypse places the hurbour in full view, on which no storms of sorrow or
persecution ever beat.

Such are the general views which should e taken by an intetiiteter
of the Apocalypse, who expects to- follow on in the path which its author
trod. He must go back, and think and feel and sympathize with the

author of the book and the Christians of his day. He must allow him ~

all the latitude, which poetry, symbol—long-continued symbol, protract-
ed beyond previous example—epopee, numerosity ir the relative parts
of the book, and moreover the different circumsta: nes in which the au-
thor wrote, can justly claim. More than this he need not do; im order
to make the book appear intelligible and consistent. Less than this
would be apt to mislead the critic, and to present the book as full of in-
congruities, or at least of unintelligible representations.

(d) The times which are so frequently designated in chap. xi—xiii.
of the Apocalypse, might constitute a fruitful theme of disquisition,
among the topics which are important to be understood by an interpre-
ter.. I shall here premise, however, only some general considerations ;
reserving a particular discussion of them for an .Haewrsus on passages
where the designations of them occur, .

It so happens, that the apparently mysterious designations of time, in
the passage to which reference has just been made, all occur, either lite-
rally or virtually, in the book of Daniel. Thus the forty and two months,
Rey. 11: 2. 18:5; the 1260 days, Rey. 11:3 and.12: 6; the time,
times, and half a time, Rev. 12: 14—all of them = 33 years or 1260
days—occur in the form of time, times, and a half or dividing of time,
in Dan. 7; 25 and 12:7. Must the interpreter regard these designa-
tions, in the book before us, as Literal or as symbolical ? #

Most interpreters in Germany, of late, have leaned to the symbolical

*

ii

.

»

4

4 “APPLICABLE 10 THE APOCALYPSE. 213

side; as did Vitringa, in a , more weal period. Liicke, in his Intro-
duction to the A pocalyps (§ 59), ealing to Matt. 24: 36 and Acts
1: 7, which declare ae the Father alone has the knowledge of times
_and seasons in his power;’ appealing also to the consideration, that no
fixed chronological dates are anywhere aimed at in the Apocalypse, from
. which we can make out a reckoning of times with any accuracy; then
goes on to say: “These considerations decide fully in favour of the
hermeneutical position, that chronology in the Apocalypse, in accordance
with the design of the writer, acts only a very subordinate part, and
that the numbers in general must be regarded, ‘and interpreted, merely
as prophetic symbols of general relations of time that cannot be com-
puted with any exactness.” p. 572. In like manner Ewald, Steudel,
Bleek, De Wette, and many others have decided, in regard to this mat-
ter.

On the other hand, since the days of Joseph Mede, most commenta-
tors in the English world have made each of the 1260 days to stand for
years, and striven to show when the period in each case commences, and
of course when it terminates.

This last opinion I have elsewhere examined,* and shall not go into
any discussion of it here. The leading considerations respecting it, I
would hope to present in an Excyrsus on the passages in Revelation
which are referred to above. I will only say, that of all the opinions
ever thrust upon ihe ment of prophecy, I know of none more
ungrounded or untenable than this.

In a different way, and more respectfully, I feel obliged to speak re-
specting the opinion of Licke and others, in regard to the symbolical
designation or use of numbers in the Apocalypse. Such a use is made,
times almost without number, of seven, and three, and in some measure
of ten, and forty, and one thousand, in the Old Testament, and partly in
the New. But such a use cannot be called common or frequent, in re-
gard to any numbers excepting three, seven, and one thousand. We
have seen above, what part three and seven act in the form and struc-
ture of the relative parts of the Apocalypse, and in a multitude of its
subordinate groupings.

But in the case before us, none of these numbers are concerned.
There is no wsus loguendi, therefore, in favour of the position taken by
Liicke, unless indeed he can make out something like this from Dan. 7:
25 and 12:7. My conviction however is, that this cannot well be done.
The time, times, and half a time, in Daniel, manifestly apply in a Literal
sense to the period in which Antiochus Epiphanes persecuted the Jews,
interrupted the temple-service, and profaned the sanctuary. Moreover,
the limitation of time is historically true and correct. If then a sym-

*In my little work entitled Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy.

¢

®

*
214 § 12. HERMENEUTICAL PRINCIPLES

bolic use only is made by John of the period just named, it is peculiar’
to himself, and not-in the way of analogy. The passages respecting the
three and a half years of drought in the days of Elijah (James 5: 17.
Luke 4: 25), look somewhat as if this period had become a kind of
proverbial or symbolical one; and probably such a usage in speech may
have been occasioned by Dan. 7: 25. 12:7. But in the cases before us
in the Apocalypse, it is my belief that a just exposition of the passages
that are concerned with the designations of time, in this book, and a
proper investigation of ancient history, will show that the writer need
not be understood in any other way than in ‘the usual and literal one.
If the events predicted in connection with these periods of time actually
took place, (minute accuracy of days in such a case is not to be expect-
ed or demanded), then what good objection can be made against the
literal exegesis of the designations in question? None; at least this
seems to be plain; for what rule is more certain in hermeneutics, than
that every passage is to be literally interpreted, unless there is some
good and cogent reason why it cannot be? If a literal interpretation
should make a sense frigid, inept, impossible, or highly improbable, then
it must be abandoned. But in the case before us, no one can contend
that any of these senses would be deduced from the text by a literal
interpretation. Consequently we are bound to follow it. And we are
the more specially bound to do so, because numbers employed in the
designations of #me cannot, in any cases of usual occurrence, be regard-
ed as tropical, or as being employed only in the way of symbol.

In regard to a few of the cases where time is designated in the Apoc-
alypse, it seems plain that the mere literal signification is not to be rigidly
insisted on. For example; the church in Smyrna are told, that they
shall have tribulation ten days, Rev. 2:10; where merely a very short
period is doubtless meant. The locusts that come up from the bottom-
less pit are to torment men five months, Rev. 9: 5; where the usual pe-
riod in which the natural locusts develope themselves is designated,
while the figurative sense of the whole passage is not limited in this
way, i. e. the figurative locusts are not restrained within that exact pe-
riod of development, but the writer merely signifies, that they, like the
natural locusts, are to have their full and appropriate development. The
three and a half days, in which the two witnesses lie dead in the streets
of the great city, Rev. 11: 11, seem to receive their limitation from the
three and a half years so frequently employed in chap. xi—xiii. It of
course designates but a very short period, one within which the corpses
of the slain would not putrefy and dissolve. An exact and literal de-
signation of time can hardly be supposed to be an object with the wri-
ter, in such cases as these.

The thousand years in chap. xx. is a case that might admit of some

-

*
_ APPLICABLE TO THE APOCALYPSE. 215

question. The frequent use of a thousand years for a period of time
long and in its nature indefinite, is so frequent in the Scriptures, that
one might easily rest satisfied with such a use in the case before us;
for there would be good exegetical ground from general analogy. In
fact, little can be reasonably said against such an interpretation. After
all, however, there is room to doubt whether the writer does not mean
here, as in chap. xi—xiii, to be literally interpreted in regard to the de-
signation of time. My belief is, that the analogy of the book itself rather
demands a literal interpretation, in this case ; but I do not think the ar-
gument from analogy is here a very forcible one. ‘The instance of the
thousand years in Rev. xx, is in many respects not like the cases re-
specting time in Rev. xi—xiii. And even in regard to these latter
cases, it is scarcely necessary to add, that no one, who is well versed in
the interpretation of prophetic periods in general, and is especially con-
versant with the uses of the numbers three and seven in the Scriptures,
would think of being confined to the exactness of a day, or a week, or
even a month, in the designation of such periods as three and a half
years. This is half of the number seven; and, as in all cases in which
such numbers are employed to designate time, from the very nature of
the thing nice regard to fractions of time cannot be reasonably ex-
pected.

This may suffice at present for the topic now before us. There is
some good reason, moreover, as I may with propriety suggest, for being
explicit and somewhat definite here. Every one who is conversant with
the history of apocalyptic interpretation for these last two centuries, must
well know what boundless conjectures have been indulged about the
times designated in the Apocalypse, and what airy speculations and phan-
tasies have been built upon them. It is time that they were brought to
an end.

(5) I close this view of the exegetical principles by which we must
be guided in the interpretation of the Apocalypse, by some general sug-
gestions, which are not indeed of a novel nature (for they are im-
plied in what has been said), but still are important and easily under-
stood, although they require experience and skill in order that a right
application of them should be made. These suggestions are, that while
all allow the Apocalypse to be a book of symbols throughout, few have
preserved a happy medium in explaining them. There is a Seylla and
a Charybdis here. If, on the one hand, we resolve all into the mere
elements of Jewish civil history, and the primary triumphs of Chris-
tianity over Jewish unbelief and obstinacy, as many have done; if we
can find (with Eichhorn and Herder) the two witnesses in the two Jew-
ish high priests, and (with Ziullig) the seven hills and seven kings
(of Rey. xvii.) in Jerusalem; then we must make our way by mere

216 § 13, ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

force through many of the most important parts of the book, and never
can be satisfied that we have obeyed the dictates of hermeneutics. And
so with the scheme of interpretation which makes everything, or nearly
everything, in the book refer merely to the destruction of the heathen.
These two schemes are different and opposite methods of the like funda-
mental error. Another and not less important error, however, is, to gen-
eralize everything in the book to such an extent, that nothing of the con-
crete remains. The wars, the battles, the famines, etc., are not only ab-
stract, but the parties or agents concerned with them are also abstractions ;
and so, all vanishes away at last into thin air ; or if it be an object of vi-
sion at all, it is one which is seen only through a misty atmosphere, and
with great indistinctness. “In medio tutissimus.” ALL SYMBOL MUST
HAVE SOMETHING REAL FOR ITs BASIS. There must be historic facts,
and historic existences, concerned with such a series of symbols as are
here found. But individual and specific events, or details of invasions,
battles, famine, pestilence, and the like, we should not look for, because it
is not to the writer’s purpose to give them ; and above all it is not to his
purpose, to write the civil or natural history of remote ages. The wants
and woes of the times are a good and important guide to the interpreter,
in these cases of danger. Let him beware, and not make the book a

mere declamatory hariolation on the one hand, nor, on the other, injure’

it by giving it a definiteness in respect to minute historical significancy,
which would destroy all reasonable ground of its having been useful to
the church in primitive times, and mar all prospect of its religious useful-
ness in after ages.

§ 13. Original Readers of che Apocalypse, and their cireumstances.

When Paul inscribes his Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Gala-
tians, Philippians, etc., no sober critic thinks of calling in question,
whether the respective churches which he addresses had a real exis-
tence, nor whether Paul meant that what he said in these eases should
be historically interpreted. It would be deemed quite a superfluous
labour, to undertake the formal task of vindicating such an interpre-
tation.

Why should not the same principles be applied to the Apocalypse,
which is introduced by epistles addressed to seven different churches,
and which purports to treat of matters deeply interesting to those
churches? It is agreed on all hands, that when the Apocalypse was
written, there were Christian churches at Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos,
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. It is conceded that
John, (whether apostle or presbyter), who names himself as the author
of the book, lived at or near Ephesus about this period. Whoever he

&

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. QF

was, he must have been a man of conspicuous character and great in-
fluence. a ae if we have made a right estimate of it in the
preceding pages, never came from, any ordinary hand or common-place
writer. At the beginning and the end of his work, he earnestly com-
mends it to the most solemn and diligent attention of the churches whom
he addresses, and guards carefully against any interpolations or abscis-
sions of it. All this looks like reality, and has at least the appearance
of much earnestness, and of deep interest in the welfare of the churches.

Would any simple-minded and unsophisticated reader ever think of
putting all this to the account of mere symbol, or of profound mysticism ?
Never, as it seems'to me, would such a thought enter his mind. It is
only after the body of the work has been read, and many symbolic and
dark and difficult passages have been found there, that any reader begins
to devise some mystic exegesis for the prologue and epilogue of this book.

_ Ishall merely glance at some of the efforts that have been made, to
eh a mystical interpretation on the proem in question. It has become
unnecessary, at last, to canvass at any great length the extravagant posi-
tions that. have been taken and defended with not a little zeal, in days
that are past.

The earliest commentator on the Apocalypse, whose work is extant,
is Victorinus, bishop of Petavio,* who deceased about A. D. 303, and
who therefore was a contemporary of Irenaeus. His work written in
Latin, although doubtless interpolated and changed here and there, still
preserves, as is moe generally conceded, the great outlines of thought,
which it originally exhibited. On p. 415, Victorinus says: “ What
John addresses to one church, he addresses to all. Paul has first taught
us, that there are seven churches in the whole world, and that the seven
churches named mean the church catholic. That John might observe
the saine method, he has not exceeded the number of seven churches.”
What Victorinus means in respect to Paul, is, that by writing to seven
churches, and.only to seven, he has taught us that all the churches are
comprehended in this number ; and hence he deduces the principle, that
John, when he. names seven churches, means, in the same way as Paul,
to comprise all the churches in the world. >

Tn this view of the number seven, as thus employed by John, Tico-
nius Afer of the fourth century, and Arethas of Cappadocia who belong-
ed to the sixth, accord; as many other interpreters in ancient and modern
times have also done. But still there is some variety of opinion among
interpreters of this class. The-distinguished abbot Joachim (Cent. 12),
Grotius, Vitringa, and others, suppose the various states of the seven
churches in Asia, to designate the various conditions in which the

* See. in Biblioth. Max. Patrum, Tom. III. p. 414 seq.
VOL. I. 28 ‘

218 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

church of Christ will successively be, down to the end of the world ;
see Vitr. in Apoc. p. 32. ‘But even among those who defend this last
peculiar and mystic sense of the epistle to the seven churches, there is
not an entire concord of views. One class, for example, hold that the
interpretation is to be purely and solely mystical ; and these assign even
to the proper names employed in the epistles to the seven churches, a
mystical meaning. Thus ‘Aoia is said to mean elatio, a symbolical
designation for the race of man which is elevated; “Eqecos means re-
mission, = agecie, and so means she who has remitted her first love, etc. ;
Wore means the excellent myrrh-perfume of the cross, etc.; and thus
through the whole circle of the seven names. In this way, there is no
vestige left of any special relation of the Apocalypse to the churches of
Asia. But another class of the mystical interpreters, justly apprehend-
ing that such egregious trifling as this can never be rendered tolerable to
the community of critics, have conceded that there is-a‘literal sense,
which ought not to be overlooked, in the addresses and inscriptions to
the churches; while, as they aver, there is also a secondary and mys-
tical sense which is by far the more noble and excellent, inasmuch as it
has respect to the condition of the churches down to the end of time.
Vitringa has attempted to defend this last position at length, in his
Commentary on Rev. 1: 20. I deem it unnecessary to examine his
arguments at length in respect to this matter. Suffice it merely to sug-
gest a few hints. (1) The double sense which Vitringa assumes, is
wholly inadmissible, on any grounds of sober and rational exegesis.
(2) If the states of the church universal are represented by the seven
epistles, then are they inconsistent with each other, and even contradic-
tory. To avoid this, Vitringa assumes that they are successive. Bui
what is there elsewhere in all the Bible to show, that the church is suc-
cessively to put on the phases of character here indicated; and specially,
to show that her last state, near the end of time, and after all her ene-
mies are conquered, will be like to that of the church at Laodicea?
The whole structure of such an edifice must be regarded as a mere cas-
tle in the air. It is indeed the offspring. of nothing but imagination ;
for there is not one word in the prologue or epilogue of the Apocalypse,
adapted to establish any conclusions of this kind, or to favour the indul-
gence of such imaginations. The whole is mere gratuitous assumption ;
assumption, moreover, which in no sense whatever adds to the signifi-
cancy, the dignity, or the importance of the Apocalypse. John, when
he addressed the seven churches of Asia, expected, and might well ex-
pect, that what he said to those churches would apply and be profitable
to all other churches, just so far as the circumstances of other churches
should resemble those of the Christians in Asia. ‘The case is of exactly
the same nature as that of Paul’s epistles. These are addressed to par-

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 219

ticular churches ; they are adapted to their wants and woes, their errors
and their virtues, their dangers and their tr Is, their outward pressures
and their. mward struggles. Of course, inasmuch as men, and Chris-
tians, are essentially the same in all ages, so the admonitions and in-
structions of Paul, with very few exceptions, will be useful, and in this
sense adapted, to all generations down to the end of time. Even so
with the Apocalyptic epistles. Consequently the mode of exegesis
which regards them as originally addressed to specifie churches, does
not abate in any degree from the highest usefulness which can be as-
signed to them. No ground of interpretation which is firm, can make
them applicable and. useful at all times and in all places, beyond the
line now drawn. None can make them more useful within that line,
than the one just proposed. Mysticism is quite out of place, in such a
matter as this. All there is about it, which has any appearance of the
mystical or the symbolical, is, that just seven churches, and no more, are
addressed. Other churches there were in that near neighbourhood.
There were churches at Colosse, at Magnesia, at Tralles; doubtless
there were churches also at other places in the neighbourhood of all the
seven churches addressed; but John has named only seven. Some
reason for this there was, beyond a doubt. It might be the fact, that
John was more acquainted with those seven churches, than’ with others.
It might be, that the seven were more considerable and numerous. It
might be, that they were in greater need of admonition, or encourage-
ment. Or, (what is far more probable still), seven, and only so many,
may have been named, because the sevenfold divisions and groups of
various kinds and of various objects, constitute a conspicuous feature in
the form of the Apocalypse throughout. It would even have been incon-
gruous with the rest of the book, had more than seven churches been
addressed. One has only to become familiar with the structure of the
book, and all necessity of argument in this case is superseded. Nothing
more is requisite than to suppose, that the number is limited to seven
merely for the sake of congruity ; and that so many, moreover, are ad-
dressed, in order that all the usual: varieties of condition and character,
among the Christians of that time, should be brought under the writer’s
inspection and receive appropriate counsel from him. When Luke
wrote his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, although he did so in
particular for the sake of Theophilus, does any one suppose, that he de-
signed that his books should be confined within a circle so narrow? Or
did Paul, when he wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, or others, design
or wish that his epistles should be confined within the limits of those re-
spective churches? If such a thing may be imagined, it cannot well be
believed. Even so with John. ‘There may be, there doubtless was,
good reason why his book should be peculiarly addressed to seven

220 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

churches; but there was is good reason, why what he i writtert
should enure to the benefit of all the churches.

Mystical interpretation, then, is out of place here. The natural and
obvious sense of words is never to be departed from, when the meaning
is significant, congruous, accordant with historical facts, and worthy of
the cause of Christianity and of the writer. All these requisitions are
answered by the simple historical interpretation of proper names and
places, as exhibited in the inscriptions of John’s seven epistles. And
such being the case, further dispute in relation to the subject would
seem to be superfluous.

I pass on, then, to other topics; but I must not pass, however, with-
out briefly adverting beforehand to the peculiar views of Herder and
Harenberg, who have distinguished themselves so much by writing upon
the Apocalypse. In particular, Herder refers everything, in the body
of the work, to the destruction of Judea and Jerusalem. But then
comes the problem : ‘How could John address to seven churches in Asia,
what was intended for the churches of Judea? His solution is curious.
He says, that ‘the sending of the book to Palestine was unnecessary,
because the discourse of our Saviour respecting the destruction of Jeru-
salem was well known there already ; and then the additional disclosures
in the Apocalypse respecting troubles and sufferings yet to come, would _
have tormented and discouraged the churches there; Maran Atha, p.
281 seq. One can scarcely credit the testimony of his eyes, when he
reads such a passage in Herder. So then, John’s attempt to write a
book in order to encourage, animate, and console Christians, was a fail-
ure; and had it been sent to the place for which it was designed, would
have done more harm than good! It follows of course, that John must
have been very poorly employed in writing it; and moreover, he must
have been a very different sort of a writer, from the John whom Herder
has characterized as the author of the Apocalypse.

Harenberg also avers, that the Apocalypse was written for Hebrew
Christians at Jerusalem, and that all the leading parts of it have respect
only to Palestine. ‘The book everywhere presupposes readers, he says,
who are acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and with all the Jew-
ish rites, ceremonies, and Cabbala. And when the question forces itself
upon him: Why then did John address the seven churches of Asia?
he has a most singular answer to give. ‘The Jews of Asia,’ says he,
‘had at Jerusalem separate schools and synagogues. The ground on
which these stood, was named Asia. The number of schools upon that
ground was seven; and these bore, tespectively, the names which ap-
pear in the inscriptions. to the seven epistles; like the English schools -
‘at Rome, in the 8th century, which bore the names of the Heptarehy ;?
Erklarung, ete., p. 67 seq. To refute this, no reader will now require.

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. para!

If'men who have studied the Apocalypse much as Herder and Ha-
renberg, and done so much to explain and vindicate it in various re-
spects, are driven to such conceits, in order to save their peculiar theory
respecting the interpretation of the book, it is enough to show that their
theory cannot be correct. Indeed it lies upon the face of the Apoca-
lypse, that, after the close of chap. xi, another power than that of the
Jews is concerned, and another country than that of Palestine.

In a word, neither the state of facts, nor the laws of interpretation,
require or even permit us to suppose, that the original readers to whom
the Apocalypse was addressed, were other and different from those who
are named in the inscription of the book. With all tender affection and
earnestness the writer greets them; to them he commends the reading
and study of his book; and on them he makes the most solemn injunc-
tion neither to add to nor detract from it. » What good reason now can
any one give, for supposing all this to be a mere imaginary and sym-
bolic matter? John wrote for somebody; he had readers; and his
work itself assigns the place where he lived, and the near neighbourhood
of it, as the circle within which he first of all designed to exert an in-
fluence by writing his book. Can anything be more natural, more pro-
bable, more easy to be believed, than that the Apocalypse has given a
true account with respect to the original readers, and the places where
they lived?

What is there, moreover, in the contents of the book, which prevents
our giving entire credit to the account which the Apocalypse: itself ob-
viously appears to give of all these matters? Will it be said, that the
Asiatic Jews had little concern with the persecutions or the destiny of
Judea? This cannot be true. All the great cities of Asia Minor were,
full of Jews. - Many of these, even of the Christian party, went up to
the yearly feasts, because they still clave to the law of Moses. All had
much sympathy for the land of their fathers—i. e. for the holy land and
the holy temple. Personal annoyance of Hebrew Christians from
abroad, when. they visited Palestine in the days of. persecution, was in
all probability not an uncommon thing. At any rate, Hebrew Chris-
tians abroad must sympathize deeply with those in their native country,
who: were the subjects of a bloody persecution. Asiatic Christians,
therefore, would be highly interested readers of the Apocalypse, and
particularly of that part of it which has respect to Palestine. If any
one, now, will reverse the case, and make the supposition, that the He-
brew Christians of Palestine are addressed ; then, on the same ground,
we might ask: What interest could they have in chap. xii—xix? But
in neither case would this be anything more than a mere show of argu-
ment. We cannot suppose, with any probability, that John expected
or designed that his work should be limited only to one circle of readers.

*
—

-
222 § 13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

It must soon have been somewhat widely diffused, on account of the
deeply interesting subjects of which it treated; so that whoever the
original readers were, it matters not, except merely as the question is
connected with historical criticism. In regard to this, however, the
question is one of great importance. If it can be shown that everything
of this nature, i. e. everything which respects the readers, or the place
or the time of the writing, is natural and probable, skepticism in regard
to the book becomes.less and less excusable.

Yet one thing, it is said, is wanting in respect to the Asiatic churches.
The Apocalypse was written about A. D. 68, when persecution was in-
deed carried. on at Rome with great fury; but not in the provinces of
the Roman empire. Consequently there is only an apprehended or an-
ticipative persecution to be found in the Apocalypse, and the writer:
merely fortifies his readers against the days of trial which he supposes
are coming.

Of late this opinion has become somewhat frequent. Neander, Licke,
Gieseler, and others appear to favour it. But I cannot persuade my-
self that such a position is well-founded. The opinion that the-perse-
cution began at Rome in A. D. 64, and that it spread and became gene-
ral in the provinces, was the prevailing opinion of antiquity. In mod-
ern times it has had strenuous and able defenders. Baldwin, in his
Comm. ad Edicta Imper.; Launoius, in his Dissert. ad loc. Sulpit.
Severt ; Dodwell, in his Dissertt. Cypr. ; and Mosheim, in his Hist. Ece.,
and also in his larger work De Rebus Christ. etc.; as also many others,
defend the ancient opinion. This is not the place minutely to pursue a
historical investigation respecting it; for the authors named, or at least
some of them, may be easily consulted. In the sequel, however, I shall
advert to a few passages of ancient testimony. What I would say here
is, that the evidences of a wide spread persecution of Christians, before
the fall of Jerusalem and among the Roman provinces, seems to be plain
and frequent, not only in the Apocalypse, but in the Epistles of the
New Testament. The Apocalypse commences with a statement, that:
the writer is in exile at Patmos, “on account of the word of God and
the testimony of Jesus Christ,” Rev. 1:9. The church at Ephesus is
commended for its patience and endurance of evil, and a peculiar reward
is promised to him that overcometh in the great contest that is supposed
to be going on, 2: 8,7. The church at Smyrna is spoken of as in a
suffering state, and as exposed to be cast into prison by Satan, 2: 10.
The church at Pergamos dwells where Satan has. his seat, and has al-
ready witnessed the death of the faithful martyr Antipas, 2: 138. To
the church at Philadelphia the promise is made, that they shall be kept
tn the hour of trial that 1s coming upon all the world, 3:10. In every
case, the close of the epistle to each church contains a promise 7@ 9-

#
+

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 223

xovzt, to him who is victor, viz. in the great contest which was evidently
going on. All the writer’s earnest srarnith, counsels, and encourage-
ments, appear to have their basis mainly in such a state of things. The
very structure and theme of the whole book indicates the same state.
What is all the struggle, and what are all the victories? The strug-
gle is with persecutors ; the victories are over the enemies and the
wasters of the church, first in Palestine, then through the Romish em-
pire. Accordingly the great army presented in chap. vi, is the symbol
of destruction to the persecutors of the church. This is made definitely
certain, by Rev. 6: 10, 11. Verse 11 indeed renders it certain, that
when. the book was written, or at any rate when the vision was seen,
the persecution was then going on, and many more martyrs were still to
be made. This would decide against putting off the composition of the
book until after Nero’s death, in case it respects persecution out of Pa-
lestine ; for all agree, that persecution ceased immediately, in the Ro-
man empire, after the death of Nero. But here, persecution in Judea
_ is the theme of the writer. Chap. xi. represents a scene of persecution
in the very last stages of the war in Palestine; for the writer evidently
means by this representation, to show the aggravated guilt of the Jews,
and how well they deserved the punishment. inflicted upon them. -In
chap. xii, Satan, having been foiled in his attempt to destroy the Sa-
viour, is exhibited as greatly enraged against Christians, and woe to the
inhabitants of the earth is predicted, by reason of his enmity. In chap.
xiii. we find Satan, the beast, and the false prophet, all combined to op-
press, persecute, and destroy Christians. Some of them are sent into
exile, and some are slain with the sword, 13:10. I can scarcely doubt,
that in this passage John touches his. own case, and threatens a violent
death to Nero because of his bloody persecutions. Rome is presented
in 17: 6, as “ drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of
the martyrs of Jesus.” And when her destruction comes, apostles and
prophets are called to rejoice that God hath avenged them on her—her
who had so long persecuted and destroyed the church. Interspersed
everywhere are passages, which show a deep feeling on the subject of
present and urgent persecution. The martyrs who remain steadfast un-
to death, or (as the writer expresses himself’) die in the Lord, are pro-
nounced peculiarly blessed, 14:18. To crown all, the first resurrection,
the living and reigning with Christ a thousand years, is held out as the
peculiar reward of those, who are beheaded for the witness of Jesus and
for the word of God, 20: 4. And when the awful curse is brought to
view, which will rest on those that are excluded from the new Jerusa-
lem, the fearful and wnconfiding, i. e. those who have renounced Chris-
tianity in the day of trial by persecutions, are placed in the front rank
of the condemned, 21:8. In fact, at the very outset, the writer, in

*
fh

224 § 18. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

stating his exile to Patmos, declares that he is an a&delqoc in affliction,
and a cvyxowwrdg in the same with those whom he addresses. In a
word; Christians were suffering everywhere, at any rate in Asia Mi-
nor as well as at Rome. The whole manner and matter of the Apoca-
lypse, then, bears the most indelible marks of having originated ingruen-
ti persecutione, i. e. whilst persecution was raging.” There is no room
for mistake in this matter. Of course, if written before the destruction
of Jerusalem, as it evidently was, it must have been written under Ne-
ro’s reign, i.e. before the persecution ceased; for it did cease imme-
diately after his death. > ;

When Peter wrote his first: epistle to the regions of Asia Minor, in-
cluding some of the most distant ones, persecution was then and there
raging; as is plain from 1 Pet. 1: 6,7. 2: 20, 21. 3: 14, 17. 4:1, T,
13—19. 5:9. James, who seems to have addressed foreign Hebrew
Christians in general, begins with counsel to those who are subjected to
severe trials, 1: 2—4; and to this condition he afterwards adverts, 2: 6.
5: 6—11. - Disclosures of a similar nature are not wanting in Paul’s
latest epistles; e. g. the second to Timothy and the epistle to the He-
brews, chap. x. xii, (that is, allowing their genuineness), and in some
others. The persecutions elsewhere mentioned by Paul, are partial and
local, for they belong to earlier periods.

Such is the tenor of most of the later portions of the New Testament.

‘No wonder that Ewald, after adverting to the recent opinion that Ne-
ro’s persecution was limited to the city of. Rome, says, in respect to its
general extension, especially in Asia Minor, that “the proofs of it are
so manifest, ut quo yure dubitemus non appareat,” p. 2.

The earlier Christian histories have perished, so that we cannot draw
from them directly any. confirmation of the views that have now been
given. Eusebius (II. 25) has only a short paragraph on the persecu-
tion of Nero. He speaks of him as the enemy of the Christian reli-
gion, and the first of the Roman emperors who persecuted it ; and then
he describes the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter under Nero’s reign.
In his account. of the persecution of Domitian (IIL 17), he says that
this emperor was the follower of Nero in his hatred and persecution of
Christians, and that he was the second who persecuted the church.
Neither here, nor in the preceding account, does Eusebius give any .ex-
press limitation to the persecutions of either: emperor, but speaks of
both in the same general way. Sulpicius Severus, however, about A.D.
408, in his Historiae Sacrae (II. 28), speaks of Nero as first endeav-
ouring to extinguish the name of Christians. After relating the destruc-
tion of many at Nero’s command, by wild beasts, by crucifixion, and by
fire, he goes on to say, that “the [ Christian] religion was forbidden by
the enactment of laws (datis legibus) ; and, by edicts published (edictis

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 225

propositis), it was lawful for no one openly to be a Christian,” (ib.
cap, 29).
It has been disputed, whether Nero did in fact issue any edicts of the
character here described. But we have a much earlier authority than
Sulpicius for this. ‘“ Consulite commentarios vestros,” says Tertullian;
“illic reperietis primum Neronem in hance [ Christianam] sectam, tum
maxime Romae orientem, Caesariano gladio ferocisse; Apolog. adv.
Gentes, cap. V.. Does not the word commentarios here plainly mean
the same thing as the edicts mentioned by Sulpicius?* Orosius, who
was a contemporary of Jerome and Augustine and much respected by
them, (as was Sulpicius also), says in his Historiae (VII. 7): [Nero]
“first persecuted Christians at Rome by torture and death, and he com-
manded that IN ALL. THE PROVINCES they should be tormented by the like
persecution. He even laboured to extirpate the very name of Chris-
tians, and slew the apostles of Christ, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by
the sword.’ Indeed, nothing can be more probable than this account of
Orosius, confirmed by Tertullian and Sulpicius.. The character of Ne-
ro is a good voucher for the possibility, or rather the probability, of such

_* That, legibus and edictis mean the same thing, in the extract from Sulpicius
above, as commenturios in this passage of Tertullian, there is scarcely any room
for doubt. Both the words Edictum and Commentarii were used in a wide sense.
Among the Romans, the edict of the Praetor meant the system of rules which he
proclaimed, when entering on his office, as his guide in. the administration of its
duties. In allusion to this, other magistrates called some of their proclamations
edicts ; so that the Roman historians speak of the edicts of kings, consuls, dicta-
tors, censors, tribunes, quaestors, etc. It is much the same with Commentarit.
At first this word meant memoirs of any individual; then it was used in the ex-
tended sense of memorabilia, and applied to short notes of a discourse, extracts
from any book, ete. Finally the 4cta Publica, or public registers of the city, were
called commentarii. Livy speaks of the commentarii of king Numa; and Cicero,
of the commentaries of kings, of Caesar, etc. ; evidently meaning ordinances, rules,
memoranda of things to be done, etc. In this way we may easily see how Nero
could persecute Christians without any formal law of the Senate to this purpose ;
(for we read of no such law on the part of the Senate, nor, of course, do we hear
anything of its repeal after the death of Nero). Nero was by office the supreme
Executive of the State. According to the Twelve Tables only the religto lacita
was lawful for a Roman citizen, or any one dwelling in the Roman provinces.
Nero, therefore, by an edict as supreme minister of Justice, or by commentarit in
his notes for the use of executive officers, could wage a war of extermination
against Christians without any difficulty. But as such an edict or commentary
was merely and only personal, and belonged not to proper legislation but to the
Executive, his death would of course annul it, unless his successor chose to con-
tinue it. But as Galba did not wish to persecute Christians, the matter, already
become very odious by reason of the horrid cruelties that had been practised, was
dropped of course when he succeeded Nero. The deep silence of ecclesiastical
historians as to the manner in which this persecution of Nero commenced and
terminated, is my apology for this long note of explanation.

VOL. I. 29

226 $13. ORIGINAL READERS OF THE APOCALYPSE,

a measure. Moreover the war against Judea had everywhere roused
up the enmity of the heathen against the hated race of the Hebrews.
The Jews, in many places, were seditious and tumultuous. And as
they were, at that early period, confounded with the Christians by most
or all of the heathen nations, and had always been the objects of enmity
and scorn and contempt on the part of the heathen, nothing can be more
probable, than that the Roman provinces would follow the example of
the capital; specially after the commencement of the Jewish war. «In
addition to all this, Christianity was uncompromising with everything
pertaining to idolatry and polytheism. The heathen priests’ were, in
particular, exceedingly jealous of Christians, and much enraged against
them. Most graphically is this feature of the times depicted, by the
symbol of the second beast in Rev. xiii. If any one needs confirmation
of these declarations respecting the state of things in regard to the Jews,
he may consult Jahn’s Hebrew Commonwealth, § 135 seq. Jost, Ge-
schichte der Israeliten, II. p. 295 seq. 320 seq.

When all the considerations thus brought to view are combined, can
it be possible to doubt that the Apocalypse was written in “ troublous
times,” in the midst of furious persecution, and when Christianity greatly
needed encouragement, consolation, and admonition? The whole book
bears throughout the stamp of such an impression.

Thus much for the state of things, which attended and occasioned the
writing of the Apocalypse. It is unnecessary for me, after having said
so much on this subject, to dwell upon the object to be aimed at, or the
end to be attained, in the writing of the Revelation. Already has this
topic been brought to view, and in some good degree anticipated, in
p- 155 seq. above. Only a few considerations more need to be added
here.

I may repeat here what I have. already had occasion to say more
than once, viz. that to encourage, animate, confirm, and comfort Chris-
tians in a state of suffering and peril, must needs be conceded, by every
impartial reader of the Apocalypse, to be the prominent design of the
book. As the sole object, we are not obliged to represent. it. John,
like other sacred writers, may have had more than one particular‘end
in view. He intended to ¢nstruct, as well as console and encourage.
He expected that the then urgent persecutions would not be the only
ones which Christians would be called to suffer. He has widened and
extended his views of the contest, toward the closing part of his book.
He has thus made the principles which it recognizes, applicable to all
times and places. The final, complete, and certain triumph of the
church is portrayed. All Christians of every period may take encour-
agement from this, and be consoled by it. But the distant future, as
before remarked, is presented in mere outlines. It is, as it were, the

AND THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. 297

back ground of his picture, drawn in colours less vivid and strong. Yet
it is an integral part of it, and the picture would be incomplete without it.

Such a view of the writer’s design accounts easily for the prominence
which he has given. to the then present and existing state of things.
He wrote specially for his ovyxowovoi in affliction. He has given all
due attention to their case, and opened before them the vista, which
discloses the more distant and peaceful future of the church. But as
their then present situation called forth his work, it was to be expected
that the work should be mainly occupied with it. Hence the persecu-
ting powers of the Jews and of the Romans, with their respective fall
and ruin, present themselves before his vision until he has made a full
disclosure of their fearful destruction.

What respects the address only to seven churches by name, has al-
ready, been. the subject of remark. Be the main reason of this the
prominence of those churches, their dangerous condition, or John’s pe-
culiar relation to them and care for them, or be it that the number
seven is grounded merely on the heptades exhibited in the main part of
the book, it matters not. John doubtless had reasons for addressing
seven churches; and it matters not to us what they were, so far as the
interpretation of the book is concerned.

That an address to so‘many churches, at such a period, would natu-
rally find its way among most or all of the churches, in similar circum-
stances, it is‘easy to suppose and is quite probable. Hence the circula-
tion of the book.. The instruction to be drawn from it, when rightly
viewed, is applicable indeed to Christians at all times. But still, the
poetic costume of the work, and the difficulty in understanding some of
its symbols, may have early impeded in some measure the wide and rapid
diffusion of the Apocalypse. Hence the eastern Syrians had and have
it not in their Canon; and some of the western Christians occasionally
doubted or denied its place in the Canon. But of this, more in its
appropriate place.

I will only add, that the special relations of John to the seven churches
of Asia developes itself so plainly in his mode of addressing those
churches, that it needs no confirmation. He must have been a man of
high consideration among them, and of much familiar acquaintance with
them, in order to entitle him to such a style of address and exhortation
as he employs. In the sequel, this consideration will be reverted to,
when we come to examine the question: Who wrote the Apocalypse?
Is John an assumed name?. Does it mean John the Evangelist, or John
the Presbyter of Ephesus? ‘For the present, it suffices to have brought
into view the relation of the writer.of the Apocalypse to the seven
churches, as one of the considerations connected with the inquiry re-

specting the original readers of the Apocalypse, and the design of the
work. ;

228 § 14. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE.

§14. Original Language of the Apocalypse.

The language in which the Apocalypse comes down to us from an-
tiquity, is Hebrew-Greek. The tradition of the churches has uniformly
been, that it was originally composed in this language. The most an-
cient witnesses in regard to this. matter, speak of no other than an orig-
inal Greek text. The churches addressed in the Apocalypse, at any rate
the great mass of them, spoke Greek; and probably by far the greater
number of Christians in them did not understand Hebrew. Even if we
should suppose that a majority of the seven churches were converted
Jews, it is not probable that the mass of the Jews in Asia read familiarly:
and understood the Hebrew, or the Hebrew Aramaean, language. Why
then should John write in that language? And particularly, if, as we
have good reason to believe, the Apocalypse was designed for circula-
tion among the persecuted churches, why should John have written
in a Janguage that but few could read? External testimony, the encyc-
lical design of the composition, the language of the persons addressed,
all combine to render it entirely probable that John wrote in Hebrew-
Greek.

In such Greek the author must write, if he wrote in Greek at all.
That he was himself a Hebrew, every page of his writing testifies, —
whether one looks at the matter or the manner.’ No writer in the New
Testament has, on the whole, displayed so much and so minute a knowl-
edge of the Hebrew prophets, as the writer of the Apocalypse. He
seems to have them wholly at his command. Instead of citing them
literally, as one is always prone to do when he feels that his knowledge
of them is imperfect and may lead him into mistake if he cites freely,
he has everywhere embodied Old Testament ideas in his composition,
without making, in any one instance, a mere literal quotation of a pas-
sage of any considerable length from the ancient Scriptures. Nota
single formula of quotation, such as Agyet, waorvest, yéyoanzat yao,
nados yéyoantou, ete., anywhere occurs. So familiar are Old Testa-
ment ideas to the author, that he scarcely seems to be conscious that he
is citing them when they are produced by him. His manner of employ-
ing them seems to indicate, that they have been so often revolyed in his
mind as to become a part of the stores which properly belong to it.
From these stores, as from his own conceptions, he draws whatever is
adapted to his purpose; and he clothes all these ideas in his own lan-
guage, following closely neither the Hebrew nor the Greek Scriptures.
One might well doubt, whether he once opened the Old Testament for
the sake of copying a citation, during the composition of his book.

Such an evident familiarity with the Hebrew prophetic Scriptures,

§ 14. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 229

and such entire freedom in the use of the ideas which they exhibit,
must be considered as evidence nearly or quite conclusive, that John
read easily and familiarly the Old Testament Hebrew. If John the
apostle was the author of this book, the high style of thinking and rea-
soning, which he ‘has exhibited in his doctrinal Gospel, would plead
strongly in favour of the position that he was well versed in the He-
brew Scriptures. Conceding that his vernacular tongue was Aramaean-
Hebrew, yet the ease with which one passes from this to the more an-
cient Hebrew, is very great, and it could cost a thinking man, like John,
but a few days of study, in order to read Hebrew with great ease. The
probability certainly is, considering the character of his parents, that he
was taught the Hebrew in his childhood. His occupation as a fisher-
man makes nothing against this. Was not Paul a tent-maker ?

His Greek style, then, must be of the Hebrew cast; for, whoever
he was, he was a Hebrew by birth and education; he was one by his
early religion. Assuming that the-apostle John was the author of the
Apocalypse, we may further say, that when he wrote the book he had
recently come to Ephesus from Palestine, and his Hebraism would be
the more palpable on account of his limited practice, as yet, in speaking
and writing Greek. No book in all the New Testament is so Hebraistic
as the Revelation. I would not, however, put this merely to the ac-
count of John’s imperfect knowledge of the Greek at the time when the
book was written, (inasmuch as his choice of words and manner of com-
pounding them show no very limited or scanty knowledge of this
tongue) ; for my belief is, that it is mainly to be attributed to the writ-
er’s minute familiarity with the Hebrew prophets, whose modes of ex-
pression and peculiar idioms he often, and as it were unconsciously, im-
itates: In fact, the style of the Apocalypse wears the appearance of
having been conceived by a mind, which had incorporated with its own
stores those of the Hebrew prophets. How natural for the writer in
such a condition, to think and speak more Hebraico !

It makes but little, then, for the position that the Apocalypse had a
Hebraeo-Aramaean original, that it is now full of Hebraisms. So is
Matthew, and Mark, and Luke even, full of Hebraisms ; so do Paul and
James and Peter abound in them. It is the common character of the
New Testament Greek. If the Apocalypse is more strongly tinctured
than any other book, it is because its style, manner of composition, and
frequent references to Old Testament prophets, make it more to resem-
ble an Old Testament production in its manner, than any other book of
the New Testament. . The affinity between the Apocalypse and Daniel,
Ezekiel, and Zechariah, not to mention other prophets, is too plain to
admit of any denial.

The attempts to find any palpable proofs of a Hebrew original, in

a
230 § 14. Ghileman LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. *

respect to the Apocalypse, are not of consideration enough to deserve a
serious notice. _ Bolten is the only critic of any name, who has defend-
ed such a position; but his extravagance in assigning such an original to
all the New ‘Testament books, is well known; and long since has it
been proscribed by nearly if not quite all respectable critics.

It has been thought by some, that. the number of Hebrew, words,
which are employed in the Apocalypse, give some indication of a He-
brew original. But if we are to take them as now presented to us,
they are rather to be regarded as proofs of the contrary ; inasmuch as
the writer has himself taken pains to translate them for his readers. It
might be said, that this is the work of the translator. But why has he
limited himself to so narrow a circle, in retaining the original words,
if this be a matter referable only to his own judgment ? ;

It seems at first to be rather remarkable, that John should so often
have translated such words as ujy and Latavas; e. 2. val, aunv, 1: 7
22: 205 and auny = adyOwos or moos in 8214; Laravrag—= dweBohog
in. 12: 9 and 20: 2. See also ABudder» = Anodivwv in 9:11. In
another case, viz. aAAyAovia in 19: 1, 3, 4, 6, no translation is made.
All these words were as common, probably, in the primitive churches,
as they now are in ours, and consequently as well understood. Ai
and adyovia belong to the Jewish liturgy; and Lararag and ABad-
dev must have been frequent among Jewish Christians. But in some
of these cases, an intensity of meaning is given by the repetition in dif-
ferent languages. Nor is this usage at all uncommon in other New
Testament writings. Thus in John 1: 39, 42, 43. 9: 7; where the
word gounveverc is connected with a Greek translation... But in John
19: 18, 17, the word A¢yezou is so connected; (comp. Rev. 12: 9, xecLovue-
vog; 20:2, gor’; 9: 11, dvoue éye).. To gather evidence, as some haye
endeavoured to do, from the use of Hebrew words in the Apocalypse,
that the book has a different.author from the: Evangelist John, seems to
be uncritical. John’s Gospel exhibits the same usage, as may be seen
above; and so does almost every part of the New Testament; some-
times with an express notice of an interpretation (goynrevdueror, [e-
PeQuyvevdusvor, tovz €or, etc.), as in Matt. 1: 23. 27: 46. Mark 5: 41
(radlsGe xovme). 7: 84. 15:22, 84. Acts 4:36. 13: 8. Heb. 7: 23; some-
times without such notice, as ¢68&, 0 aarjo, Mark 14: 36. Rom. 8: 15;
sometimes without either notice or translation, as 1 Cor. 16: 22, poco
aa; and so of wir in scores of cases. Whoever carefully examines
these cases, will find that no particular formula of introducing Hebrew
words is appropriate to any one writer; for the same writer uses one
form in one place, and another in a different place. So it is with John,
in his Gospel; 1: 39, 42, 48. 9:7 exhibit one form; 19: 18, 17 exhi-
bit another; and in more than fifty cases uj» is used without ‘expla-

-

+ § 14. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 231

nation. Soin the Apocalypse, 9: 11.-12: 9. 20: 2, there are formulas ;
in 1: 7. 22: 20. 19: 1, 3, 4, 6 there are none, and in the last four cases
no translation. And in this last way, auyy is frequently employed. To
say, with some recent critics, that’ because ¢ouqreverou is employed in
John’s Gospel, and not in the Apocalypse, therefore the writer of the
two books must be different, is surely a very important conclusion drawn
from very inadequate and slender premises, Three out of four of the
cases in the Gospel are all in the same short paragraph, and are but
the mere repetition of the same formula as applied to different words in
the same way; (John 1: 39, 42, 43). Every one, who is well acquaint-
ed with the writings of John, must know that it is characteristic of him,
when a particular method of speaking is once introduced ina connected
paragraph, to carry on that modus through the paragraph, so often as
he has occasion to introduce the same idea. So is it with guzjy in John
iii ; so with several forms of expression in the last addresses of Jesus to
his disciples, chap. xiv—xvii; so with the almost constant use of the
historic present tense, in 1: 15 ad fin., 13: 4 ad fin., and chap. xx. xxi.
In those portions of John’s Gospel last referred to, a great part of all the
historic present tenses in the book are contained. . No weight, therefore,
can be justly attached to such an argument as-that which we are ex-
amining.

As connected with the subject of the original language of the Apoca-
lypse, may be considered the question: What Scriptures did the writer
consult and quote? The original Hebrew, or the Greek, 2. e. the Sep-
twagint ?

This isa question somewhat difficult. Often as the author of the
Apocalypse has for substance quoted the Old Testament—even more
often than’ it is quoted or alluded to in any other book of the New Tes-
tament—yet, as has already been said, he has not in a single instance
used the common formula of quotation. It is quite apparent, that his
quotations and allusions everywhere flow from his own full ming and
memory. ‘They do not wear the appearance of being searched after for
the occasion, and then copied verbatim, but of being made from memory,
and of flowing from the spontaneous incorporation of Old Testament
ideas with his own, so that they receive their hue from his own method
of thought and expression. Hence the difficulty of settling the ques-
tion, whether he followed the Septuagint or the Hebrew. Safely may
we answet, that he has followed neither xara adda. The ideas from
the Old Testament which he introduces, might have been drawn from
either. In Rev. 1: 7, he has manifestly departed from the Septuagint,
(which has xazweyyoarto and not é€exértyoar), and conformed more
closely to the Hebrew. So again in 2: 27, comp. Ps. 2: 9 in the Sep-
tuagint. In many other passages, there is a close approximation to

i”

232 § ib .. OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE *

modes of cxptece the Septuagint, e.g. in 7: 9. 10: 11. 11: 9, 12:
14. 10:5. 5:5. 22:16, and other passages, which the reader can readily
compare. ‘Yet in these and all others, there is a freedom in the Apoca-
lypse from any exactness of copying, which renders it difficult, if not im-
possible, to say whether the writer had his mind principally upon the
Septuagint, or freely translated for himself, and employed an idiom
which approaches very near to that of the Septuagint. All the Greek
translations of the time were in the idiom of the Hebrew-Greek; so
that this characteristic decides nothing for or against the use of the Sep-
tuagint by John. But the freedom of the citations shows one thing, at
least, viz. that John most probably wrote in Greek originally ; for a
mere translator of the Apocalypse into Greek would have been likely to
consult and follow exactly the Septuagint version of Old Testament
passages. John himself could freely incorporate the sentiment of these
passages with his own method of thinking and expression, whether he
referred to them in Hebrew or in Greek. That he could do either,
there can be no reasonable question. The author of the Apocalypse
was verily “a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” No book in all the New
Testament, as has been said, bears so strong an impression of the He-
brew dialect as the Apocalypse. ‘That the writer of this book was’ con-
versant with both the Septuagint and the original Hebrew, who can
_ doubt for a moment, that well considers the character of his book? And
if John the Evangelist was the author, who can doubt that such a mind
as he evinces in his Gospel, would be familiar with both the Greek and
Hebrew Scriptures? Yet neither this circumstance, nor any other that
has been mentioned, nor any within my knowledge, is sufficient abso-
lutely to decide the question, whether John quoted from the Hebrew or
from the Greek Scriptures. Nor is it of any serious importance.
Whichever he did, he is far enough from being a mere literal copyist.

§ 15" Peculiar characteristics of the language and style of the Apoc-
alypse.

On account of these, the Apocalypse has often been attacked by those
who have been disposed to show this book but little favour. Even the
first formidable opponent, who called in question the apostolic origin of
this book, did not overlook the circumstance of its peculiar idioms. I
refer to Dionysius Alexandrinus (fl. 225), who thus expresses himself:
Aidhentov wévtor nei yhacoay odn expipag Ryritovoar abzoo Bigne °
GIN SiwH}paor Ue BagBapraoig yowperov xed mov xcl cohottorta. That
is, ‘I perceive, indeed, that. his dialect and language is not accurate
Greek; [and not only so] but that he uses barbarisms, and in some
places even solecisms ;’ quoted in Euseb. Ecc. Hist. VIL. 25. Diony-

7 De os
ir IN THE srgosvnesed) i: 233

sius had a favourite point to carry, when he a. oe to gain credit
to these assertions; and so have many who repeat them in modern
times, and urge them with great zeal upon the community. Still, there
Is some specious foundation on which they are built; and, with the in-
formation which is now abroad in relation to the idioms of the Greek
language, we can better come to some just determination in relation
to these allegations, than was feasible in ancient times, or even in mo-
dern, until the results of recent investigations were made known. The
older critics, who have found fault with the idiom of the Apocalypse,
have, for'the most part, contented themselves with pointing out the dif-
ferences between ordinary prosaic Greek and that of the Revelation.
It requires, indeed, but a moderate share of acquaintance with the usual
classic Greek, in order to be able to point out what have been named,
(after the example of Dionysius), barbarisms and solecisms in the Apoc-
alypse. Even a tyro, who has but learned the ordinary rules of syntax,
can do this; for departures from these are of frequent occurrence in the
Revelation. A more’ advanced state of acquaintance with Greek»
however, must lead one to conclude, that there are few, if any, of the
apparent anomalies in the Revelation, which may not be justified by
examples of the like kind, even among the more reputable Greek authors.

First of all it is proper to inquire, whether there are not metes and
bounds to the question before us, which must be well understood before
we can safely advance in our inquiries.’ It is no valid charge against
the Apocalypse, that, in common with all the New Testament books,
the Septuagint, and the earlier Greek fathers, it exhibits a Hebrew-
Greek idiom. How could we believe its author to have been a Hebrew,
if it did not? And why should that which is common to all New Tes-
tament Greek, be made a matter of charge against the Apocalypse, or
be considered as belonging to its peculiarities? Whatever there is in
it which merely belongs to the idiom in question, it is of course to be
exempted from an inquiry which has respect only to its peculiarities.

The general question being thus stated, it may be proper to premise
a few remarks, which may assist in judging of the peculiarities under
consideration.

I need only to advert here to the fact, that the Apocalypse is essen-
tially a poetic composition, in order to gain assent from every enlight-
ened critic, that all proper allowances should be made for this method of
writing. Every age and nation has a poeti¢ dialect, in some respects
distinct from the common colloquial, or the usual prosaic, dialect. Who
does not know, that the dialects of Homer, Pindar, and other poets, in
Greek; of Virgil, Juvenal, and others, in Latin; of Milton, Shakspeare,
and others, in English; have oecasioned critics and grammarians an in-
finitude of labour and trouble? Yet no one presumes to regard these

VOL. I. 30

234 § OULTARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE 7

peculiarities of poety as a blemish upon the composition. Often have
they been appealed to, as even adding beauty and force and attractive-
ness to the respective works in which they are found. If John’s work.
is poetry in its very nature, (whether rhythm i. e. measure, or not, is
of no essential consequence), then why are we not naturally to expect
an idiom, which is more or less peculiar to the book? Common critical
justice demands that we should make an allowance for this.

Tt is a matter of course, that we should concede to the author of a poet-
ic composition, (one truly so), an excited state of mind. Nothing can be
more evident than the existence of such a state, when,the Apocalypse
was written. From beginning to end, it is filled with the most glowing
expressions both of feeling and of imagination. A writer in this state
does not stop to weigh his expressions in the scales of grammarians,
nor to polish his periods according to the dictates of rhetoricians. _ Paul
would hold but an indifferent place as a writer, if he were tried by the
technical rules of grammar and rhetoric. Critical justice does not de-
mand that either he, or the author of the Revelation, should be tried in
this manner. f

One more remark I must make in this place. If John the apostle
wrote the Apocalypse, he wrote it, in all probability, soon after leaving
Palestine and going to Asia Minor. In the natural course of things,
this book, written under such circumstances, would bear more frequent -
traces of Hebrew idiom than his later compositions, viz. the Gospel
and the Epistles.

Having premised these considerations, we may now proceed to exam-
ine the principal peculiarities of language or idiom, which are appealed
to as matter of accusation against the Apocalypse.

(1) ‘Nouns which are in apposition or epexegetical, and also partici-
ples or adjectives which refer to or qualify a preceding noun, the wri-
ter has put into a different case from that of their antecedent noun;
in doing thus he has violated one of the plainest rules of syntax.’

Examples, to which appeal is made, are of such a nature as the fol-
lowing: Rev. 1: 5, a0 ‘Inco Xeiozov, o pagrus 0 MOTOS, 0 MowtdTO-

wos... 0 doyor, x. 7.4. Rey. 5:11, 12, nat jxovoa peony ay yehoow
pie - moeoButéguy ... Aeyorteg. Rey. 14: 6, xat eldov &Adov
Le te Salon Rey. 14: 12, vmopery tov Rak 80TIY, OL TIQOUY-

tec, etc. See also the like in 2: 20.3: 12. 9: 14. 8: 9. 17: 4. 14: 14. 21: 12.
In these instances, the Nominative follows after an obligue case of its
antecedent, with which case the former ought ordinarily to agree. In
. others there is a different order, although the principle is similar 5 Cn.

Rey. 4: 4, (S0v, Pedros . » KeORUEPOE « tots . Poorer... Kad MQEO-
Burgoovg xaOnuerovs. ee 79) siics, nai idov, dyhog... éorarec
nepipeBagusvovs, etc. See also 20: 4. 14: 14, for the like constructions.

as

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 235

Instead however of naming these and the s in the Apoca-
’ a solecisms or barbarisms, as often been done; or instead of
merely reckoning them as anacolutha, (which explains nothing) ; recent
grammarians have very justly put them to the account of rhetorical
method. ‘The Nominative case naturally begins a sentence, and takes
the lead in demanding attention. Where a writer wishes to continue a
sentence once begun, by expository clauses which more fully define or
illustrate, he may, in case he begins them with any word, (noun, or
participle, or adjective), which would naturally be in apposition and in
the same case with the preceding word that is to be explained, choose
the Nominative case for the explanatory clause, whatever may be the
2 case of its antecedent. Such, the reader will at once perceive, is the
ease with the first class of examples above exhibited. The Nominative
case of the expository clause throws it of course more into notice; and

it is preferred, because the rhetorical effect is more sought after than
conformity to the technical rules of grammar. In particular, where a
participle stands at the head of the subordinate clause, the Nominative
may be chosen for it, because it is by usage equivalent, or nearly so, to

a verb in such cases, and therefore assumes the Nominative in order to
make this palpable. For illustration and confirmation, I need only re-

fer to Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 68 seq. Lucke, Einleit. in d. Offenb.

§ 27, 4. Kithner’s Gramm. § 508, 2, specially § 677 seq. Winer’s
New Testament Gramm. § 64,2. The last writer has shown that the
New Testament is full of this idiom; and Kihner, that the same is
very common in some of the best Greek classics. In both the New
Testament and in the classics, the participle is most frequently concern-

ed with this apparent anomaly; and such is the case in respect to the
Apocalypse. It is needless, therefore, in respect to such a usage, fur-
ther to vindicate the writer of the Revelation. I will only subjoin two

or three examples from the classics, in the way of illustration. IL. ¢,
395, Avdeoucayn, Ovyacye . . . Heriwvos, Heiwr, og évouer, etc. Il. x, 437,
naddorovs tnmove iSor, 7S weyiotovs * Levxdzegor xidvos, Oeiew 8 avéeuot-

ow ouoiot. Thucyd. VII. 42, coie Suoaxovoios uaramdgig ... oav-
rec, ete. Thucyd. IIL. 36, goer wvzoig . . . éxnahovyres. Xenophon,
Plato, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Euripides, and others, afford not a few
examples of the like kind. There is nothing even peculiar, then, to.
the Apocalypse in the use of these rhetorical modes of speech. The
most that can be said is, that they are somewhat more frequent here,
than elsewhere in the New Testament; but in this there is nothing
strange, when the nature of the book is once considered. One might
even say, that of course constructions of this nature are to be expected.
The second class of cases, above specified, belong to a somewhat dif-
ferent construction. In Rev. 4: 4, (Sov precedes; in Rev. 20: 4, eidov;

236 § 15. vn ARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE _
imizeiOs, 14> 1:4, eiBon an idov. In the construction of the three latt
cases, it seems leet that ei0oy is carried along in the writer’s mind, ai
made to bear on the Accusative, where this is employed; while
Nominative cases in the same consecution are employed {as usual) after
idov. In Rey. 20: 4, this is plain in respect to eidoy; in 7: 9. 14: 14,
both constructions appear, viz. the Nominative after (Sov and the Accu-
sative after efor; and in 4: 4, although only (ov is expressed, it is
evident that the writer mentally and very naturally supplied an eidov.
In mere common prose this would not be usual, and: therefore would
not be expected ; in a composition like that of the Apocalypse, it is surely
nothing strange. In 13, 3, uéay is doubtless governed by the eidor of
the preceding verse, which is mentally carried forward.

That constructions of such a nature as those just described were not
understood by the author of the Apocalypse, is a most improbable sup-
position. How comes it to pass, that he has exhibited so much know-
ledge, elsewhere, even of many of the nicer idioms of the Greek, and
yet was ignorant in regard to the true nature of constructions like those
above? And the like remark might well be repeated, in respect to most
of the apparent anomalies. which follow.

(2) A second charge of anomaly against the Apocalypse is, that ‘ con-
cord as to number and gender is not duly observed.’

For the most part, this charge has very little foundation. E. g. all’
those cases of constructio ad senswm, which are found everywhere in the
New Testament, and in.all good Greek authors, establish no good basis
for such a charge; and such cases are 4: 8, Caw... 2¢yorteg, where the
living creatures are considered and spoken of as being rational ; 5:
13, m&v utiowa... a... 2€yortag, where the same remark applies to
the masculine participle; 6: 9, zag poyas ... Agyortec, where wuyac
means men ; 8:7, yahalu nai mde meuyucra. é aipact, where pemuyueroe
follows the gender of the nearest antecedent, but the nwmber is made
plural because it necessarily extends to two objects which were mixed
with the blood; 11: 15, peovet ay 2k Léyorzes, the writer's mind is upon
the angels who speak; 138: 8, 4, €Savuacer ody 1] 77]. + - Het MEOGEXvYY-
coy... Aévovtes, first a verb singular according with 7 77, then a verb
plural because 77 is a noun of multitude, then a par biciple: masculine plu-
ral, because men are meant; 14: 3, yduadeg, of 7IPOQUOHE évot, where ae
Ledes designates thousands of men 5 17: 16, ca Se&xa xdoutu.:. xat 7d
Inolov, ovtor mesncovow, where odzor is employed ad senswm, because
men are meant; 19: 1, Oxhov TOALOU .. . Asyortor, where oxhov is a
noun of multitude; 19: 14, ca ozgazevuata ... quohovdel .. . érdedv-
MEV Ol, etc., the first verb following the usual oS ean uction (in the singu-
lar) with the neuter plural, and the participle the constructio ad sensum.

.

IN THE svocursten. i 237

‘ 4
stances of this nature are to be found everywhere; and they scarcely
our particular attention. and comp. Gen. 15:1. 45:1. (Sept).

pparently more difficult or harsh is the construction in 4: 3. [7]fou
+ « OM0LOG 0oacEel, ete. But adjectives in -tog, -«uo » -atog, are

often employed by the best Attic writers as having only two endings ;
and of course, dwovog may be feminine. The author was at liberty to
take his choice; and in 4: 6. 9: 19. 18: 18 he has employed the usual
feminine form of this adjective, which shows that he was not ignorant of
it. See Passow, Lex. sub voce, and my N. Test. Gramm. § 32. 1. ¢.
Winer’s N. Test..Gramm. § 47.. In Rev. 14: 19, cy Anvoy .. . cov peé-
yer makes a difficulty. But here, as in the case above, the author had
* his choice of genders; for the Greek has both 6 and 7 dyv0g. In com-
mon prose it would be singular to join the masculine adjective with the
marked feminine 7» Ayrov; but in a composition like that of the
Apocalypse, the usual technical rules of grammar are not to be rigor-
ously urged. It is clear, from 14: 20. 19: 15, that the author knew and
also recognized the feminine gender of djr0g. It would seem, therefore,
that he purposely wrote tov wéyar in the case before us; perhaps be-
cause the @vudg zov Oeov, which immediately precedes, was in his
mind and gave rise to the masculine adjective; perhaps because he
meant to form an unusual construction which still was a lawful one.
The case in 19: 6, povyy dydov ... vdatar ... Boortay ... Aeydrzoov
is easy of solution. The participle Aeydrzwy refers not merely to Boor-
tay (feminine), but to all of the antecedents. We might expect A¢you-
oar, agreeing with marjv; but this is not the usual method of John,
comp. pariy cédmyyos Aeyovons, 1:10. 4:1. Mere prose would attri-
bute the speaking to the voice ; poetic animation regards it as proceeding
from the persons or things which utter loud sounds. ‘Those who have
overlooked this, have charged these last two passages with anomaly or
barbarism. Anomaly it may be, in the eye of a mere technical gram-
marian ; but can we be justly cramped by his narrow rules, in judging
of the Apocalypse? What must we decide, on such ground, respecting
many a passage in Homer, Pindar, Thucydides, and even Plato?

To the present category belongs the alleged anomalous use of number,
in connection with NEUTER PLURALS. ‘The allegation against the Apoc-
alypse is, that ‘it employs a plural verb in connection with these, while
the Greek idiom demands a verb in the singular,’

But here we must remark, that the general rule thus laid down ad-
mits of many exceptions. _When animated beings, which of course
have distinct individualities of being, are designated, the plural verb is
the more common usage after a neuter plural noun. So when plurality
of parts is a predominating idea of the noun, and specially when a nu-
meral qualifies it (which of course implies distinct parts), the plural

238 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

But there is no entire uniformity in these cases; and exceptions ma
be found even in the best Greek authors, and specially in the later ones.
Sometimes both usages appear in the same sentence. Has _ Apoc-
alypse violate a these principles § ?

Facts will answer this question. As usual, the verb singular follows
the neuter plural, in 2: 27. 8: 3. 9: 10, 20. 18:14. 14: 13. 17: 8. 18:
14, 21: 12; all of which cases differ in no respect from the more com-

verb is often and even more usually employed after a neuter plural noun.

mon classical usage. In several instances, however, the verb singular ~

stands connected with neuter plurals designating animated beings, viz.
in Rev. 1:5. 5:18. 16:14. 19:14. But in each of these cases the
singular number seems to be employed, because the idea expressed is
rather designed to be collective than individualizing ; in which case the
more common usage would adopt the singular, in order merely to ex-
press totality rather than individuality. It is apparently on this ground,
that the neuter plural, even when connected with a numeral, sometimes
takes a verb in the singular, as e. g. in Rev. 20: 3, 5, 7, reléotq te yidwce
ézy, where the design of expressing totality is plain. On the contrary,
the plural verb is usual in the Apocalypse, when animated beings are
spoken of; e. g. 3: 4. 5: 6. 11: 18, 18. 15: 4. 16:14. 18: 23. 21: 24.
So virtually in 4: 6, 8. 5:14. 19: 21. Even the minute shade of express-
ing individuality, is observable in the usage of the Apocalypse; e. g.
Rey. 1:19, & siov; 8: 2, & &uehiov amo¥carein, i. e. particular Christian
virtues ; 8: 11, éixocrOyour, viz. various waters, see in verse 10; 15:
4, Sixaimpara epareodOyouy, viz. the seven last plagues, see verse 1;
20: 12, BiBdia yvoly nour, the many books of record for all the human
race; 21: 4, 7a moara anyiOor, viz. the former various objects of
heaven and earth. If there be in the Apocalypse any other plural verbs
joined with neuter plurals, I can only say, they have escaped my diligent
and often repeated investigation.

The result, in this case, is very different from what even recent critics
of name, e. g. Ewald and others, have represented it to be. In fact, we
are even surprised at the degree of conformity to the principles of clas-
sical usage. Some few cases there are, where the peas employs both
the singular and plural verb in the same sentence; e. g. in 16: 14. 19:
14. But in this, too, there is no singularity ; for we aes the same in
John 10: 4, 5, 27. 1 Cor. 10: 11. 2 Peter 3: 10. 1 Sam. 9: 12 (Sept.).
Il. 6, 185. Sometimes also the verb singular is employed, in other
books of the New Testament, in case animated beings are spoken of,
e. g. John 10: 4,16. 1 John 3: 10> Luke 8: 2. Mark 14: 27; some-
times the plural, John 10: 4, 5, 8, 12, 16. See also, Matt. 12: 21. Mark
5: 18. James 2: 19. Whoever wishes to see all these usages confirmed
by the Classics, may consult Winer, Gramm. § 47. 3. Kushner, § 424.

ce eae

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 239

Nor is there any stable foundation for the remark, of late often re-
ee that the Apocalypse differ palpably from the Gospels and
pistles of John, as to the usage in question. I have looked through
these books, and found in’ both of them some — of the
verb singular with a neuter plural, (and these are all that I have found
by a minute search); but not more than some three or four of these
designate animated beings, when the object is to individualize. In the
Gospel and Epistles, John follows common usage, as explained above.
_ In the Apocalypse, we find the same usages; and so the idiom is of the
same nature in both. John in his Gospel, 10: 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, shows
that the plural was familiar to him, when animated beings were spoken
of. Any attempt to build on any discrepancy in usage, in regard to
this particular, the theory of diversity of authorship between the Apoc-
alypse and the books of John the apostle, is surely in vain. There is
no marked peculiarity, in this respect, in either of these books. Proto-
types in classic Greek, in all respects, may easily and everywhere be
found.

(8) ‘The syntax of the verb and participle, it has often been al-
leged, ‘is frequently violated in the Apocalypse.’

(a) ‘The Present tense is put for the Praeter.’. This is indeed very
frequent; but then this belongs to all the New Testament, and to all the
classic Greek writers. The historic Present, (as grammarians call it),
belongs of course to all animated narration ; and it is to be found un-
usually often, both in the Gospel of John and in the Apocalypse. In
reading through both these books, I have noted one hundred cases in
which it is employed in the Gospel, and forty cases in the Apocalypse.
Of the one hundred, however, some sixty-five belong merely to the
word Aé¢yei, singular or plural; and a large portion of the others to
Zoyerou and some other common yerbs of motion. The numerous cases
of 2¢yeu belong, almost entirely, to the frequent dialogues which the
Gospel exhibits. In the Apocalypse, but few dialogistic passages occur ;
and in these there is just about the same frequency of Agyes as in the
Gospel. As to other cases, I have noted thirty-five in the Gospel and
thirty in the Apocalypse, which exhibit a similarity of usage in both
that deserves special notice, inasmuch as they are some indication of the
same hand in both. For the rest, I would merely remark, that although
the historic Present is everywhere to be found in the New Testament,
yet nowhere is it employed with so much frequency as in the writings of
John. As the Hebrew has no appropriate form for the Present, this
must be put to the account of the Greek, and not of the Hebrew idiom.

(6) ‘ The Present is used for the Future.’—It is so; yet not in any
other manner than in other parts of the New Testament, excepting that,
from the nature of the composition which is prophetic, either the proai-

240 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

mate future, or the certainty that, the things described will take place,
naturally presents itself with greater frequency than in mere didactic
composition. Nothing is more usual, than to employ the Present tense
in order to express either of these ideas. Thus Matt. 26:2, “ Ye know
that after two days ¢s (yivecat) the Passover, and the Son of Man 7s
betrayed (napudidora) in order to be crucified ;’ where the proximity
and the certainty of the events are strongly marked by the Present
tense. And so in cases more than can well be numbered. In a rhe-
torical view, this mode of expression is far more significant and intense ~
than the simple Future. The thing to take place is designated as al-
ready happening or being accomplished. There is here no enallage of
the tenses, as grammarians are wont to call it, i. e. the use of one tense
for another by a sort of mistake or heedlessness; but there is a designed
tropical use of the Present, in order to give vivacity and energy to the
expression.*

In perfect accordance with this idiom are our English expressions:
I am going abroad ; I am going to journey; I am coming to see you
speedily, and the like. In the Greek and Latin classics, the same idiom
is altogether common; see Winer, Gramm. § 41. 2, for examples and
references. Nor need we call it Hebraism, as Ewald does (Comm.
p- 89), when such a tropical Present is followed by a Future, in the
same construction. Virtually such a Present is a Future; and, of
course, the regular Future may naturally follow in order. In most of
these cases, moreover, the tropical Present designates only preparatory
action, while the regular Future designates the action consequent upon
this, and really future in respect to it. Such a use of tenses needs no
apology and no defence. The Gospel of John presents us with the like
phenomena ; e. g. 14: 3, 18, 19, 80. 16: 16, 22, 25, al., in some of which
cases the Future even precedes the tropical Present. All this shows
how easy and familiar such a construction is.

(c) ‘Anomalies in the use of the Future occur in the Apocalypse.’—
There is but one passage, however, where anything special and peculiar
in the use of the Future occurs. This is in Rev. 4: 9 seq., and runs
thus: xat dcar Sdoovor ta Cou Sdkay.. . mecodvzat ot. . . mpEoBITEQoL
1. KCl MoocxvVATOVEL . . . xeet Bachovor, ete. Winer (Gramm. § 41. 6)
refers these Futures to the subsequent scenes of the like nature described
in the Apocalypse, e. g. 5: 8—14. 11: 16. 19: 4.. But how could the

* In the Gospel of John such a use of the Present is very common; e. g. 7: 33.
8: 14 bis, 21, 35. 9: 4. 12: 35. 18: 3, 33, 36. 14: 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 28 bis, 30. 16: 2,
16, 22, 25, 28, 32. 17: 11, 18. 21: 22, 23 bis, ete. These ‘are only specimens.
1 John 2:18. 4;3al. So in the Apocalypse; e. g.1:7. 2:5, 16, 22. 3: Ont.
11: 5, 6, 9, 10, 14. 13:10. 14:11 bis, 18 bis. 16: 15.17: 11, 12, 13. 22: 7, 12, 20.
Here again is much uniformity of usage between the two writings. Almost all
the cases in question belong to such verbs as égyowoe and yzadyw. .

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 241

reader of the former passage be supposed to know what scenes were to
be presented in the sequel? Much better is a solution to be found here,
on the ground of Hebrew idiom. The use of the Hebrew Future, in
designating actions habitually or often repeated, is well known to every
intelligent reader of that language. Thus Job, who made sacrifices con-
tinually for his sons, is spoken ob as MYL M22, so doing habitually, Job
1: 5.. So 1 Sam. 1: 7, “ Year after year mesh, did he do tt.” Ewald
has a large number of examples, Gramm. § 278, § 289, Ist edit. The

» usage is clear. In Rey. 4: 9 seq., we have a case of the same nature.
The Apocalyptist is painting a scene as it constantly or habitually is,
not merely what presents itself for the moment to his eye. This agrees
entirely with the Hebrew usage. The Greeks, in such a case, would
commonly use the Present in an aoristic sense, just as it is employed in
universal propositions. So should we do in English. But John, who
leans strongly to Hebraism, has-here chosen the Future to express his
meaning. Nor is this case entirely peculiar. In Rom. 3: 80, dimeud-
ost designates the established method of forgiveness. In Luke 1: 37,
aduvernoe marks what belongs to all times. Even in classic Greek,
the Future is employed to designate repetition, but mostly in regard
to time future only; see Kiuhner, § 446.2. The cases where refined
conversation employs it for the Present, in such words as Bovdjoowcat,
20eljow, and the like, (Kihner, § 446. 3), will not apply to Rev. 4:
9 seq.

(d) The charge, that ‘the Apocalypse employs anomalously the
Aorist for the Future,’ is hardly to be made out from ézeAgo07 in 10: 7.
The writer means to say, that “when the last trumpet shall sound, the
mystery of God 7s already completed.” No Future could express this
with the same energy. It is not indeed an expression of regular tech-
nical grammar, but one which true rhetoric prompts. So in Rey. 15: 1,
*« Seven angels, having the seven last plagues, Out éy avraig érehéoOn
0: Ovmos rov Mov,” the idea plainly is, that they are called last, because,
when completed, the wrath of God is also completed at the same time.
The expression indicates the certainty and the full completion of the
thing designated. Perhaps éBaoihevous in 11: 17, belongs to the same
category. Nor is this use of the Aorist strange. Homer, Plato, Euripi-
des, Demosthenes, and others employ the Aorist, (and also the Perfect),
to designate with intensity the certainty of future events. Kuhner has
given abundance of examples to illustrate this, § 443, 2. The Aorist
is even more intensive than the Perfect for this purpose, inasmuch as it
denotes completed action in distinction from continuance, which the Per-
fect mere appropriately attaches to itself as an adsignification. Vir-
tually do we find the same use of the Aorist in John 13: 31. 19: 6, 8.
Whatever difficulties may have existed among critics, in times past,

VOL. I. 31

242 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

with respect to such a usage, it would seem that there is now no more
occasion for them.

(e) Some other peculiarities in regard to verbs deserve a brief men-
tion. In Rev. 12: 7, occurs an unusual construction of the Infinitive :
“Michael and his angels tov woleujoat were tov Sedxortos.” Ewald .
solves this Infinitive, by comparing it to the Hebrew Infinitive when it
is taken as a gerund; and so he renders it here “pugnandum, i. e. pug-
nare debebant.” But such is not the shade of meaning here. It is the
simple relation of what was seen in vision. Much more probable is the
solution that refers to the Hebrew Infinitive with > prefixed, which (with
or without m+ expressed) stands for a definite tense, i. e. for the Future
with its various meanings, and which may therefore be rendered in the
past, present, or future, pro exigentia loci. In Chaldee, also, such an
Infinitive is common; as the book of Daniel shows. See ample illus-
tration in Ges. Lehrgeb. § 211. But in Rev. 11: 7, the context will
readily supply the verb éyévero or éyévorto; so that éyévorto tov mode-
pout = the Hebrew onbm> tm, a mode of expression by no means un-
common in this language. The form of expression in the Apocalypse
is doubtless a singular one, in such a connection; but in a work of such
a nature, are we not to look for some expressions of this kind? Do not
Homer, and Pindar, and. Thucydides, present constructions quite as
singular ?

For the rest, the Infinitive with zov before it, excepting when zod
marks it as a nomen verbale in the Genitive, is a rare occurrence, either
in John’s Gospel or in the Apocalypse. I have searched in vain for a
single instance, excepting Rev. 12: 7; but still there may be some that
have escaped my notice.» Winer produces not one, in his numerous ex-
amples of the Infinitive with zov before it, Gramm. § 45, 4. This is
another remarkable point of resemblance between the two books.

Instances I have noticed of a peculiar use of the Perfect, s’Aypa, in
Rev. 5: 7. 8: 5, viz. as a simple Aorist. Perhaps there is another in
3: 3. It is well known, that a difference among the best Greek writers
exists, in regard to the frequent use of the Perfect. Herodotus, for ex-
ample, abounds in it; and among orators it is very common, inasmuch
as the past is thereby represented as standing in connection with the
time when they are speaking. It is exceedingly difficult to draw any
exact line in this case, inasmuch as the use of it often depends on the
mere subjective views of the writer or speaker. But in the instances
before us, the aoristie sense is so plain and as it were necessary, that-
we can hardly bring sAyqe within the bounds of common classical usage.
In Rey. 2: 27. 11:17, the writer shows that he understood the true and
distinctive nature of this Perfect.

(f) In respect to PARTICIPLES, it is said that ‘the Apocalypse em-

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 243

ploys them in an absolute way, i. e. in the simple sense of a verb hay-
ing a finite tense; and this in a manner and measure nowhere else to be
found. And there seems, indeed, to be some good foundation for this
remark. Instances of this nature may be found in Rey. 1: 16. 4: 5. 10:
2, 8. 14: 14. 19: 12, 138, 21: 12, 14,19. Also 6: 2,5 may be reckoned
here, but this is not necessary; but 4: 1, 6. 5: 6. 7:9, usually reckoned
here, do not properly belong to this category, but have the usual attribu-
tive sense. In 16:10, the participle has. éyéveco with it, which, how-
ever, here means became, and is not the proper helping verb for the
participle. The use of participles for verbs, when accompanied by the
definite verbal forms of svat, specially the use of them for the Imper-
fect, is common to all the New Testament, and usual in good Greek
writers ; Winer, § 46, 9. Kihner, § 416. 4. So in John’s Gospel, 1:
28. 10: 40. 13: 23. 16: 24. 17:23. 19: 11, 19. 20: 30; all of which,
however, belong to the third person, singular and plural, of the Perfect,
(which is common everywhere), excepting the first two. But in most
or all of these cases, the copula sivas is expressed ; whereas in the Apoca-
lypse it is omitted. It must be conceded, therefore, that, in respect to
this particular of participial usage, the Apocalypse differs from the other
New Testament books in general. But if we resort to the Hebrew and
Chaldee idiom we may easily find the prototype. In these, the partici-
ple is employed, times without number, for the definite tenses of the
verb, and often stands in the same construction with a verb which fol-
lows it; Gesen. Lehrgeb. $214. In Hebrew, also, the verb m°n (to
be) may be employed with participles, as e/vas is in Greek; but this
construction is somewhat more rare. Hence we find the Apocalyptist
employing the Greek participle in the usual Hebrew manner, i. e. omit-
ting the copula or helping verb e/var. The deep Hebrew colouring of
the book serves both to explain and to excuse this. And even the
rapid transitions of thought, and the abrupt nature of the composition,
may serve to account for the omission of eivat, where a more sedate
condition of mind would perhaps have supplied it. Or it may be ac-
counted for on the ground of rhetorical brachylogy. Examples of the
like kind, where eivau is omitted, are not wanting in the Greek Clas-
sics; see Kiihner, § 680.

Occasionally, moreover, we find in the Apocalypse a species of ana-
coluthon in the use of the participle; since it is followed by a finite verb
in the same construction; e. g. Rey. 2: 20, “Jezebel, 7 2¢yovcu that she
is a prophetess, xai Sid donst uot mLavg rove suovs Sovdovs.” See
also 1:5, 6, 7@ ayamort.... uai hovourt... nai Emolnoer juts,
etc.; 3: 7. 18:17. But this anomaly, (if that which is common to
Greek writers, and to all the New Testament, may be so called), is not
more frequent in the Apocalypse than elsewhere. In Hebrew this is

244 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

far from being an unusual construction, Gesen. Lehrg. § 216. 2; and
in the New’ Testament, it is almost everywhere to be found, Winer,
§ 64, IL. 2,5. It is no stranger even in the Classics; see Winer ut
supra.

(4) There are other specialities of idiom in the Apocalypse, by which
it is somewhat distinguished from classic Greek. Yet very few of them
are peculiar merely to this book ; for they belong in general to the com-
mon Hebrew-Greek idiom of the New Testament. Thus, the dual
number is nowhere found in the Apocalypse ; but this is equally true of
all the New Testament. Even in classic Greek it is often dispensed
with, and particularly in the later Greek.

In classic Greek the Genitive of nouns, as well as of pronouns, is not
unfrequently prefixed to the governing noun, for the sake of emphasis ;
but this is less frequent in the New Testament, and particularly in the
Apocalypse. Perhaps the Hebrew idiom, (which always places the
Genitive after a governing noun), may have had some influence on this
usage. At all events, such a position of the Genitive before its govern-
ing noun is merely rhetorical.

In the Apocalypse there is, in several places, an unusual succession
of Genitives following each other without any intervening words; e. g.
8: 13. 9: 9. 18: 8. 14: 8, 10. 16: 14. 19: 15. But there are instances
of the same nature in Paul, and in some passages of his writings even.
more frequently than here; see 2 Cor. 4: 4. Eph. 1: 6. 4: 13, and many
more examples of the same kind in Winer, § 30. 3. Note 1. At all
events, the Apocalyptist found examples enough of the like kind in He-
brew; e. g. three Genitives in Job 12: 24. 20:17. Gen. 47: 9. Is. 13:
4, al.; and sometimes even four, as in Is. 10: 12. 1 Chron. 9: 13. Many
other examples may be found in Gesen. Lehrg. § 174. 3. Note 2. In
heathen writers the like may also be found; although they rarely occur
with the same frequency. In most of the cases in the Apocalypse, as
also in Hebrew, one or more of such Genitives occupy the place and
have the meaning of adjectives ; which relieves, in some measure, the
seeming want of facility in expression, and also accounts for the accu-
mulation of so many words in the same case.

There is also a repetition, in the Apocalypse, of the same word in a
protracted sentence, whether preposition, pronoun (in the place of a
pronominal adjective), verb, or leading noun, which strikes one at first
as peculiar. LE. g. Rev. 16: 13, “Out of the mouth of the dragon, and
out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.”
So Rev. 5: 6, & wéow; 6: 12, eyéver0; 8: 12, 26 color; 12:9, EBLUDY 5
13: 15, sixav Oygiov; 17: 6, & cod aiucecog ; 18: 22, 23, &v oot e453 19:
6, we gory; 19: 18, oaoxas (four times). The frequent repetition of
the verb, however, is rather rare. Instances like 26607 in 18: 7, 14, 15,

iN THE APOCALYPSE. 945

xctzexan in 8: 7, and some few others, may be easily explained on the
ground of rhetorical emphasis or intensity. In like manner the repeti-
tion of avzov and av’re» (in the room of pronominal adjectives) is not of
much frequency. Examples of evzod may be found in 13: 2. 14: 9; of
evcor, in 6: 11. 9:19, 21 (four times). 11:9. 13:16. 14: 18. 16: 11.
Other cases of apparent repetition belong not to this rubric, because they
are attached to separate objects to which one common pronoun (adjec-
tive) could not properly be applied. The cases above designated stand

» on the basis of Hebrew usage, or at least of Old Testament rhetoric.
The Hebrew says, and must say: apa sma, his sons and his daugh-
ters, and not in the manner of oi vioi xat Suyaré goes avtov; in the like
way the Apocalyptist expresses himself in the passages above. Yet the
repetition of the pronoun in some of these cases is rather for the sake of
éntenstty, than for any other purpose.

The repetition of the same preposition before different nouns in the
same case and joined together, is more frequent in the Apocalypse than
in classic Greek, and rather distinguishable, with respect to frequency,
from the usual run of New Testament Greek ; see é% in 15: 2, 8. 16:
13. 17: 6; évodmoy in 3; 5. 14: 8,10; peta in 19:19; dré in 20:4. But
such cases as azo in 1: 4, 5, ef in 1:11, év in 6:8, and dua in 1:9. 12:
11, are not to be reckoned here, because they serve the purpose of spe-
cification and distinction ; see Winer, § 54.7. Even in the Greek
classics a similar usage prevails, and for the like purpose. The repeti-
tion of prepositions in Hebrew, occasionally to a great length, is by no
means unfrequent; see 2 Sam. 1: 12. 2:9. 3: 10. Hos. 1:7. Is. 11:11.
Still, I apprehend that most, if not all, the cases in the Apocalypse were
the effect of design on the part of the writer—a design to make each
part distinct. A similar repetition may be found in all parts of the New
Testament; and the usage itself depends mostly on the subjective views
and feelings of the writer; see Winer, wt supra. ‘The contrary prac-
tice, i. e. the omission of the preposition before nouns in the same case
and connected, may be seen in 1: 9. 5: 9. 10: 11. 11: 9. 13: 7, al.

The allegation, that the Apocalypse more frequently inserts preposi-
tions before cases that might dispense with them, than any other New
Testament book, can hardly be established; at least not in such a mea-
sure as to render prominent this difference of construction. When we
consider that the Hebrew has no Genitive and Dative cases after verbs,
except as they are made by the help of prepositions ; and also that a
strong Hebrew idiom plainly pervades the Apocalypse, (as indeed we
might naturally expect), there is nothing strange in the fact, that pre-
positions before these cases are more frequent than in the Classics, spe-
cially in the earlier ones. Yet examples may easily be found, and with
some frequency, of a different tenor. E. g. the Dative of manner, means,

246 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

material, time, etc., without any preposition; as in 5:1, 12. 6:10. 7: 2,
10. 8: 8, 4, 8, 13. 10:8. 14: 18. 15: 2, 8. 17:4, 18:10, 16 bis, 19, 21.
19: 17.; 21:8, 16,'49.22:.14.

Examples moreover almost without number may be found, where
the Dative is regularly employed after such verbs as signify to give, to
impart, to call to, to show, manifest, tell, belong to, etc., which occur
everywhere in the Apocalypse; and besides these, many examples of
the Dative where other constructions might be employed, e. g. after
moocuuvéo in 4:10. 5:14, 7:11. 11: 16. 18: 4 bis. 16:2. 19: 4, 10 bis,
20. 20: 4. 22:9; axodovddo, 14:4, 9. 19: 14; hazpsvo, 7:153 ovy-
xowwrew, 18: 4. For the rest, I have examined the whole book for the
purpose of putting to the test the alleged lack of the Dative case in the
Apocalypse ; and I find it employed as often as elsewhere in the New
Testament, where verbs are employed by the writer which admit of it.
Cases occur here, as elsewhere, in which the writer had his choice be-
tween the Dative and Accusative, and in which he preferred the latter 5
a trait of style not peculiar to him only, but found in all parts of the
New Testament, and in other Greek writings. In all this there is no-
thing peculiar.

In regard to the use of the Genitive case after verbs and participles, .
instances after the manner of the Classics are not wanting; e. g. dwow
-+. TOU merva, 2:17.5 yeuortTa OPOaduor, 4: 6, 8, and the like in 5: 8,
15: 7. 21:93 éyeuiodn xanvot, 15: 8; yéuor Bdehvywater, 17: 43 yxov-
ow évdg, 6: 1, and the like in 6:3, 5. 14: 18. 16:1, 5, 7. 21: 3. + It is
beyond a doubt, therefore, that the writer was acquainted with the clas-
sical use of this oblique case; and it would seem, that when he has not
followed this use, he has either exercised a choice which was grammati-
cally within his power, or else he leaned to the Hebrew mode of con-
structing a sentence. The use of prepositions naturally makes language
more specific. Hence, throughout the New Testament, as also the later
Greek authors, we find this use very common, even in a multitude of
cases where the laws of grammar might dispense with it. That the
writer of the Apocalypse was not ignorant of even the nicer uses of the
Genitive, is plain from several constructions with which we meet; e.g.
the Genitive of price or value, as dyveoiov twice in 6: 6; of time when,
as juéoas xe vuxtdg, 7: 15. 12: 10. 14; 14. 20: 10, an imitation of the
Hebrew m3">) bi. Once we have the length of time designated by the
Genitive, viz. déa qusgwr in Rey. 2: 10. But instances of such a na-
ture are not wanting in the Classics, and in other parts of the New Tes-
tament ; see my New Testament Grammar, § 100. 7, comp. § 106. 4.-

The cases in which the Hebrew construction of verbs with their fol-
lowing cases is preferred to the grammatical and ordinary Greek one,
are almost none; and what there are according to some of the critics,

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 247

seem to be of doubtful authority. Thus in 2:14, éidaoxe r@ Baudecx ;
where, however, Wetstein, Vater, and Tittmann, employ the normal zéy,
and Mill reads é¢vy cq Bodcx, i. ein the history of Balak. But if we
adopt the reading 7 Bakaz, we have Hebrew usage of a similar na-
ture ; e.g. 2 Va>, Job 21: 22, b main, Deut. 33:10. Hos. 10: 12 (bis) ;
although the Habirew, like the Greek, ‘waually prefers the Accusative af-
ter these verbs. Besides, 7q@ Bakax may be here the Dativus commodi,
which is not unfrequently recognized in the Apocalypse; for in Num.
22: 6 Balak says to Balaam: ““Apaoui jot, curse for me this people,
ete.” Nor is the Dative of instr here an impossible construction ;
for the meaning would then be, that Balaam employed Balak as his in-
strument in enticing the Israelites ; which sacred history confirms.

In like manner xoivew 70 aia é or and civog, and éxdinalo.... &%
tivos, 6: 10. 18: 20. 19: 2; is to be accounted for probably on the ground
of the Hebrew y2 np? or 7a wn; see Ges. Lex. in vv. “Axolovd sc pe-
t& twos, 6: 8. 14: 138, need not be attributed to Hebraism ; for even
Lysias and Demosthenes express themselves occasionally in this way,
not only after éxodovdéw, but after other kindred verbs; see Phrynicus,
edit. Lobeck, p. 853 seq. Nor is there any necessity of referring eio7d-
Sev éy avroig, in 11:11, to the Hebrew 3 xia, as Liicke does, p, 220.
There is a nice, but still a well known, idiom of the Greek, which per-
mits the Dative with é, after verbs of motion, to be used in the same
sense as the Accusative with ef¢, because there is in such a case in fact
a constructio praegnans ; so in John 5:4. Luke 7:17, Rom. 5:5. Matt.
10:16, al. This is also quite frequent in the Classics ; see my N. Test.
Grammar, § 113. Note 2. Kihner’s Gramm. § 621. a. 6. Winer, § 54.
4. The word omitted, in such cases, is some verb which signifies fo
dwell, remain in, take one’s station, etc., and the mode -of expression is
of course brachylogical.

In a few cases a peculiar preposition follows certain verbs. E. g. Rev.
9: 20, 21. 16: 11, petavoeiy éx, instead of the Accusative. So in Acts
8: 22 with azo after this verb. Is not this an imitation of the Hebrew
72 a8?

Once we have such an expression as viawvzag éx tov Oyotov. I re-
gard this as brachylogy, and equivalent to eonquerors safe from the en-
counter with the beast = vixavtas [nat cwlouerovs | éx, etc. We meet
with it but once.

The phrase ova sig txaotog, Rev. 21: 21, is, I believe, without any
parallel in the New Testament or in the classics. As a preposition avd
governs the Accusative in prose, and usually the Dative in poetry.
Here, however, it is employed before the Nominative, and seems there-
fore to be used adverbially in order to designate the idea of distribution,
and to mean severally or separately ; comp. Luke 9: 3. Rev. 4: 8, for a
like shade of idea.

248 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

Some peculiar phraseology oceurs in the Apocalypse, which belongs
rather to the aesthetical than to the grammatical department. E. g. Rey.
8: 18, “ I heard an eagle flying... saying with a loud voice, etc.” The
meaning seems plainly to be: ‘ I heard an angel eagle-winged, or tak-
ing an eagle-flight, saying, etc.’ The manner of expression is bold and
abrupt, but not too much so for the Apocalypse. Again in 9: 1, “I
saw a star falling from heaven...and to him was given the key of the
bottomless pit, etc.”; i. e. I saw an angel star-like or resplendent as a
star, ete. Rev. 16:7, “I heard the altar, saying: Yea, Lord God,
etc.,” i. e. a voice from the altar, or from the altar-angel, viz., the angel
who watched over the altar. These and the like expressions plainly
belong to the vivid and abrupt style of the Apocalypse, and to the glow-
ing imagery which pervades it. It is the poet on whom we are to criti-
cise, in such. cases, and not the technical rhetorician and grammarian.

A peculiar division of the universe occurs in 8: 7—12. 14: 7, and the
like in 16: 2—8, viz. into heaven, earth, the sea, and fountains of water.
In the first and last cases, this is necessary to the writer, in order to
carry his plan into execution of dividing the trumpets and the vials into
classes of four and three; and the passage in 14:7 follows the same
analogy. The departure from the usual Hebrew division of heaven and
earth, or heaven and earth and seas, seems to be wholly occasioned’ by
the plan of the writer in arranging the subordinate parts of his work. —

Like the Hebrews generally, the Apocalyptist often employs the Wo-
minative absolute ; e. g. 2: 26. 3: 12, 21. 6: 8..7: 13. 17:16. So in
Gospel 1: 12, 18, 27, 33. 3: 32. 8: 45. 15:2. Epistle, 2:27. 3:17.
The Nominative followed by ovzog as subject of the verb, 3: 5. 17: 11,
is of a similar tenor. But both of these are-common in all Hebrew-
Greek ; nor are they, particularly the first of them, strangers to the
Classics. See my Heb. Grammar, §$§ 415—417. N. Test. Grammar,
§ 97.2, The Nominative form with a vocative meaning, as in 6: 10.
15; 3. 16:7, al., is common not only to the New Testament, but even
to the Classics, as any good grammar will show; Matthiae, § 612.
Bernhardy, p. 67.

The repetition of a demonstrative pronoun, specially in relative clau-
ses of a sentence, is not unusual in the Apocalypse; e. g. 7: 2, oi¢ &d0-
On avroig adixjoo etc.; 20: 8, or 0 aordmds adtar wo 7 eumog ete.
Even adverbs are sometimes repeated in like manner; as 12: 6, dzov
éyet éxgi tomor etc.; 12: 14, dzov zoepetau éxet ete. Other instances of
the former kind, see in 3: 8. 6: 4, 8. 7: 9. 17: 9. But in this there is
nothing peculiar to the Apocalypse, unless perhaps its frequency. Ex-
amples may be found in all parts of the New Testament; in the Septu-
agint the usage is still more frequent, because its idiom is still more He-
braistic. But even the Classics are not strangers to the same verbosity,

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 249

(if it must be so named); and such writers as Xenophon and Cicero
have deemed it proper on some occasions to employ it. Proofs abun-
dant of all this may be seen in Winer’s Grammar, § 22. 4. The fre-
quency of it in the Apocalypse may be regarded as Hebraistic. Every
Hebrew scholar must call to mind the well known idiom of “WN, as in
a. “Wx to whom, DB...WX where, etc. (see Ges. Lehrgeb. § 197) ;
and ~ the pleonastic siidheeqpabinin which is followed by the noun to
which it relates, as 732 - MS anyon, she saw him—the child, Ex. 2: 6,
Ges. ubi sup. § 192. 2 seq. Like to this are the repetitions in question.
In the Apocalypse we can hardly put them to the account of intensity,
although they would seem to be appropriate for such a purpose, like our
English that-there, etc. But particularity of specification must at least
be allowed to them.

. Sumilar to this usage is abn, which repeats the demonstrative pro-
nouns after the subject or Nominative case has been already mentioned,
and inserts a pronoun relating to this same subject before the verb to
which that Nominative properly belongs; ; and so with the other cases; e. g.
Matt. 24:13, 0 vmoustvas slg télos, ovz0g coOncetas. Matt. 6: 4. Mark
7: 15, al. saepe. So in Rev. 6: 4, cp xadnucr@... £00y avt7@ LaBeiv
ete. 3:5. 2:17. But this usage is also to be found in the Classics, (see
Winer, § 23. 3); and the repetition in all such cases is made for the
sake of intensity or emphatic specification. See examples in Xen. Cony.
8. 33. Ages. 4. 4.

It has been alleged, that the Apocalypse employs the Accusative of
time contrary to good usage, i. e. that it employs the Accusative to de-
signate time when, and not merely duration of time. For proof of this
it is common to quote Rev. 3: 8, ov uy yras moiay wear 7&o, etc. But
this is the only instance of this kind in the whole book. The common
usage, i. e. to designate duration of time, may be seen in 8: 1. 11: 2, 3,
6, 9. 12: 6,14. 13: 5. 17: 10, 12. 20: 2, 4, 6. Moreover, cases like
that in Rev. 38: 3 may be found in the Classics; see Kihner, § 545.
Anm. 4. That time which is at the ultimate extent of his coming, is
here the prominent idea, and therefore the Accusative is allowable. So
in the Classics, we find »¥xca, tiv éomgoay, cov Mor, etc., In a sense
like that which the Genitive would have; see Bernhardy, Synt. p. 116.
See, for the regular use of the Genitive in designating time, what is
said above, p. 249 seq.

A peculiar construction is found in the present text of Rev. 2: 13,
viz. &y nugoais év aig ‘Avrinac, 6 mdotvsg mov 6 mortds, 0¢ anextavOy
nao vor. It is impossible to make out a grammatical construction
from this as it now stands. It would seem that either éy aig must be
omitted and “Avtinag be written ’Avzima in the Genitive, or else o¢
must be dropped. .That 6g has arisen from a duplication of the end-

VOL. I. 32

2

250 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

syllable of the preceding word, cds, would seem altogether probable; _
more particularly so, as nothing like such a construction occurs any
where else in the Apocalypse. To read, as Lachmann does, Artinas,
and omit év aie before it, seems to make an absurd text. No writer in
possession of his senses could have written so. See Commentary on the
passage.

The manner in which two nouns are joined together by we, as, in like

manner as, as it were, ete., deserves a passing notice. In general the
noun after og has the same case as the one before it; e. g. 1: 17, éxeou
. 09 vexoog. 6: 12, 0 yhuog...méhag wg Gaxxog. 3: 3. 6: 11, 14. 9 2.
10: 1, ete. Soin the Accusative as 2:18, opIadwors . . . OS POH MVOOS.
2: 27. 9:8, eiyor colyas we toiyas yuvouxor. 9:9. 12:15. 14: 2. 18: 21,
al. But in 6: 1, we have: ... Aéyortag, we pary Boorris, i. e. wg Qa-
vy Boovens dye. But examples of elliptical construction with og are
everywhere to be found, and in a great variety of cases ; see Lex. we.
The Hebrew, moreover, forms a separate under sentence by words con-
nected with the 5 of mere similitude; for, in such cases, brachylogy is
usual. There seems to be no special peculiarity in the Apocalypse in
regard to wg, when employed.as above described.

After such an extended examination of those constructions in the
Apocalypse, which have been erroneously put by many to the account
of barbarism, solecism, or peculiarity of style, we may now come to-
a few particulars, in which the style of this book, or the manner of its
diction, differs from most, or all, of the other New Testament books.

This difference is limited principally to the conjunctive particles.
Throughout the Apocalypse, we find scarcely anything but zai as a
conjunctive, or even a transitive, particle. The d¢ and ov» and z¢ and
yao of other New Testament books are scarcely to be found here. Ouvp
we meet with only in the intrcduction or monitory part, viz. in 1:19. 2:
5, 16. 3: 3. 3: 19, in all of which cases it is ‘l/at/ve. In the same part,
also, we find 6¢, transitive in 1: 14, and so in 14: 13. 19: 12; but dis-
junctive in 2: 5, 16, 24. 10: 2. 21: 8; not to be found elsewhere, (if I
have not overlooked it), excepting d¢ in combination with other words,
such as ovd¢, ete. We might naturally expect S¢ in such transitions as
exist in 2:8, 12, 18. 3:1, 7, 14. 12:7. 14: 8, 9, 18, 14. 16: 3, 4, 8, 10,
12, 17, ete.; yet xi is employed in all these cases. Not only so, but
zai is employed in a great portion of the transitions even of the largest
kind, where a classic writer could hardly be expected to use it, and
where it is not very common in other New Testament books; e. g. in
Gees voids 104.514, 5. 12: 1, 18: 11. 14: 1, 6. 15: 1, 16:1.
17: 1. 18:1. 20:1, 4. 21: 6. Even in John’s Gospel and Epistles such
cases are not wanting; e.g. 1:19. 2:1. 4: 27, 46. 7:1. 9:1. Ep. 1:
5. 2: 20. 4:21. In all this the Hebrew scholar will see a strong tinc-

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 251

* ture of Hebraism. Almost the only particle which connects sentences
larger or smaller in Hebrew, or clauses of sentences, is Vav, 5. This
particle is not only employed to connect different words used in the
same construction, but’ in attaching clauses or words used in the way of
Hendiadys, or as epexegetical and explicative, or in the way of apodo-
sis, or between the members of a comparison; moreover, also, between
parts of sentences, or whole sentences, adversative, antithetic, or dis-
junctive ; and so also Vav introduces causal clauses, or conclusive ones
() = therefore), or final or consecutive ones (showing the end or object).
See Ges. Lex. on 5 for examples of all these uses. It is not only em-
ployed in all this variety of ways, but it often stands even at the begin-
ning of a new book, in the Old Testament; see Ex. 1:1. Lev. 1: 1.
Jesh: Ieee Jtidg. dy Y.-L Same: 4.2 Sam. ‘de 1. Ie Ko 1s 1.2 Keds 1.
Ezek. 1:1. Ruth k: 1..¥Hst.1:1.. Ezra: 1. 2°Chron. 1:1. © In such
cases, we can translate ) only by merging it in the verb, when it is pre-
fixed to one, and regarding it as merely conversive ; or when it stands
before nouns or pronouns, as in Ex. 1: 1. 1 K. 1: 1. Ezra 1:1, we are
obliged to suppose, that it is designed to indicate a connection with some
other book, which is regarded by the writer as properly preceding it; or
else that it has been supplied as a mere connective with other books, by
the redactor of the Old Testament Scriptures. The reader, who is fa-
miliar with the Old Testament and specially with the Prophets, needs
not to be told, that other connectives of discourse, besides Vav, are
there but very sparingly employed. And similar to this is the usage in
the Apocalypse.

Té¢ is not to be found (in the corrected text); but this particle is em-
ployed only twice by Matthew; not at all by Mark; only once by John
in his Gospel and Epistles, almost never by Paul except in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and never by Peter. Luke is the only writer who is
familiar with its use; and he employs it more than one hundred and
twenty times in the book of Acts. To a native Hebrew, who used al-
most nothing but his } as a connective, té must have appeared in some
good measure as superfluous. The very unfrequent use of it in the New
Testament, is a pledge for the truth of this statement.

As to ydo, it occurs in the Apocalypse some fifteen times, and mostly
in the simple causal sense. That it appears so seldom, is not in the
least strange; for the Apocalypse is not a book of ratiocination, where
the connection between a fact or truth and its cause or ground, is often
to be expressed. Paul employs yég more than all the New Testament
writers besides, because his epistles are so often argumentative. It is
clear, however, that the use of ydéo was familiar to the writer of the
Apocalypse; that it is employed so seldom, results merely from the
kind of composition, which is a constant succession of descriptions of

252 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

things seen in vision, and arranged in such a way that yao is seldom °
needed or even admissible: In the Gospel it occurs some sixty-three
times; but here ratiocination is very frequent.

That, in respect to the use of d¢ and ov as particles of Suites. and
transition, the. Apocalypse differs strikingly from the Gospel of John,
must be confessed. Ovv appears about 200 times in the Gospel; yet
only once, however, in the first. Epistle of John. 4 also appears a

‘ great number of times in the Gospel; comparatively but seldom in the
“first Epistle ; in the Apocalypse, thrice as a continuative, 1: 14. 14: 13.
19: 12, and five times as a disjunctive, 2: 5, 16, 24. 10: 2. 21: 8. The
complexion of the Apocalypse is indeed altogether Hebraistic, in respect
to connectives, for zai is almost the only one employed; and this falls in
naturally with the fact, that this book was written soon after John went
to Asia, while the Gospel was a later production.

As to those particles which belong peculiarly to ratiocinative discourse,
and are employed to designate logical dependence and connection, it is
of course perfectly natural, from the nature of the Apocalypse, that we
should seldom find them in it; and equally natural that we should find
them frequently in John’s Gospel, a great part of which, as has been
stated, consists of argumentation in some form against the notions of the
Jews, or demonstration of the true principles of Christianity. Hence
émel, 00, H00 ovr, and the like, are not to be found at all in the Apoca- -
lypse. ‘Ezei occurs, however, but twice in the Gospel of John, and not
once in his epistles ; and the other two particles not-at all.

In fact, the structure of the sentences throughout the Apocalypse,
with scarcely any exception, is almost entirely of the same simple na-
ture as that which prevails in Hebrew. In this respect, the form of the
book is altogether like that of the Hebrew prophets. . As a singular ex-
ception to this remark may be mentioned Rey. 18: 11—13, where the
sentence is not only complex in its form, but it also varies its construe-
tion in a sudden and almost surprising manner. Yet why should this
be strange, in such an ézuixtor as that chapter contains ?

It is proper to remark, before we take leave of the subject respecting
the manner in which sentences are joined together, connected, and con-
‘tinued, that a great number of them are introduced by i300; about one
‘half of these with an accompanying xa/, and the other half without it.
‘This is beyond all doubt a Hebraism ; and no one, who is acquainted
‘with Hebrew, can fail to have remarked the universal predominance of
mn (= (Sov) in the Old Testament, specially in the prophecies. But
although, in a book like the Apocalypse, we should very naturally ex-
ipect the attention of the reader. to-be often called upon by the use of
(ov, yet it is also common elsewhere ; for John has employed it some
five or six times in his Gospel, and Luke and Matthew times almost

4

IN THE APOCALYPSE. ~ ° 253

Without number. Paul uses it less frequently, as we should expect from
the tenor of his epistles; and John does not exhibit it in his. It be-
longs, however, to Hebrew-Greek; and the use of it can never seem
strange to a Hebrew reader.

Another equivalent method of calling attention, very often employed
in the Apocalypse, is x«t eiSov. Nothing can be more natural than this,
since the whole book is a succession of visions. A frequent particle in
the Apocalypse, moreover, is 6ze; which is in like manner a favourite
particle in John’s Gospel, in clauses where a transition of the discourse
is made. Meza cadza in the same Gospel, and in the Apocalypse also,
is another and frequent formula of transition; see Rev. 4: 1. 7: 1, 9.
192.5. 18:1. 29: 1. 20:8.

I have now brought before the reader, all that is usually alleged as
peculiarity, either as to diction or grammar, in the Apocalypse. We
have found, after a protracted examination, that very little indeed, if
anything, deserves the name either of barbarism or solecism. Nearly
all that is apparently irregular or unusual, we may vindicate | by refer-
ences to classical or to Hebrew-Greek usage. It is only the greater fre-
quency of these things in the Apocalypse, to which any appeal can be
made for establishing the charge of peculiarity in this book. But this
charge may be satisfactorily rebutted, by asking the questions: Is not
the Apocalypse the production of an excited state of mind, and of the
most vivid feeling? Is it not prophetic poetry ?

Grammarians and rhetoricians do not think it meet to find fault with
the Boeotian or Pindaric Schema in Dorie writers. They allow Ho-
mer, Hesiod, and other poets, to take a thousand liberties also with the
customary forms of words, and in many respects even with the rules of
syntax; and all this without supposing it to be any good evidence of
barbarism or solecism. Thucydides was no barbarian ; and yet he has
sinned against the ordinary technical rules of grammar, times almost
without number. Who ventures to rebuke him, or to call him by hard
names? . Yet the Apocalyptist has not found a like indulgence among
the critics. Eichhorn, for example, and Heinrichs, very kindly set
John right, where they suppose him to have gone wrong, and supply
(sometimes, but not always with success) the regular normal Greek, for
the benefit of the hesitating reader. With the like kindness, apologies
are frequently made, by them and others, for much of John’s phraseology,
which results, as they imagine, from his want of skill in ‘Greek, or his
overweening attachment to Hebraism, or his Rabbinical notions in va-
rious respects, and the like. All this, if you please, may be well in-
tended; but I am fully persuaded that it is quite unnecessary. The
more extensive any one’s knowledge of Greek idiom is, and specially of

——

254 §15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE

the Hebrew-Greek, the less difficulty will he find with the diction and
syntax of the Apocalypse.

If John, the apostle, was the author of this book, an entire novice in
Greek he probably was not when he wrote it, nor even when he went
to Asia. Itis more than probable, that the fishermen of the sea of
Galilee were acquainted, at least in some good measure, with common
colloquial Greek. ‘The intercourse between that part of the country and
their heathen neighbours, many of whom were Greeks, must have been
very considerable. The very occupation of John must have early brought
him in‘contact with many of these ; and more or less of colloquial Greek
would naturally be learned. That it would be strongly tinctured with
the Hebrew idiom, there can be no rational doubt. The idea, that John
was unable to read a Greek book of an ordinary character, can scarcely
be rendered probable, even at the period when he first became a disci-
ple of Christ. Much less so afterwards. He was surely no ordinary.
person; for the manner in which Jesus loved him, confided in him, and
distinguished him from the other disciples, is proof of high intelligence
as well as of moral worth. All this would go to show, that John was
not.a mere tyro in Greek, when he wrote the Apocalypse.

Besides; in the great mass of cases, the tenses of the Greek verbs
are used in strict accordance with the nicer doctrines of the Greek tense.
When departures from this take place, a good reason for them ean be
given; so that these departures even show a knowledge of the nicer
- tropical use of the tenses. The'modes are employed in an appropriate
manner. The Subjunctive regularly follows iva, (a rule which Paul,
no novice in Greek, does not always follow, see Gal. 4: 17. 1 Cor. 4:
6); and so is it also with 6za», etc. If a Future tense is ever employed
in such cases, it is only where usage sanctions it. The hdstoric Present
is, as we have seen, quite frequent in the Apocalypse, and is there, as
elsewhere, employed in order to promote the vivacity of the representa-
tion. We have seen above (p. 246), that the nicer uses of the Geni-
tive and Dative were by no means unknown to the writer. Atticism in
the use of the conjugate noun and verb, such as éxavuetioOynou. . .
node, 16: 9, eaduace ... Pave, 17: 6, John was cognisant of ; or,
perhaps, we may attribute this to Hebraism. So the Attic augment 7,
in Hdvvato, 5: 3. 7: 9. 1428. 15: 8; the use of gozyxe as a Present
tense, 3: 20, al. saepe; even the form éo¢yxécay, third plural of Pluper-
fect, not usual in the New Testament, is employed in 7: 11, and in the
sense of an Imperfect, according to good Greek usage. No want of
skill, indeed, in the forms or the tenses of Greek verbs, can be fairly
charged upon the Apocalypse. Compound verbs are employed, as well
as simple ones; and a fair proportion of them (as will be shown here-

IN THE APOCALYPSE. 255

after), and with the usual meaning, and the usual construction after
them.

Moreover, there are peculiarities of Hebrew-Greek in general, which
are often exhibited here. Thus we find the use of ta with the Sub-
junctive, instead of the Infinitive mode; an idiom so common in John’s
Gospel, and not unfrequent elsewhere; Rev. 2:21. 3:9. 6:4, al. 426
is employed before nouns of measure, i. e. distance, Rev. 14: 20, a0
oredr, ete., m like manner as in John 11: 18. 21: 8, and also in the
later Greek classics. The somewhat unfrequent use, indeed, of cases
without prepositions, is obvious here; but so it is in all parts of the New
Testament. Modes of expression like time, times, and half a time, 12:
14; day and night for the idea of continually, and the like idioms of the
Hebrew, we also find.

In the use of ov and yu, in the use of ovds... odd¢, ote ... odTE;
in the meanings and regimen assigned to prepositions, and generally in
the use of the particles so far as they are employed; there is nothing
striking on the score of singularity in the Apocalypse. 'The compass of
the writer’s knowledge, which enabled him ‘to. distinguish and appro-
priately name all the precious stones which are adverted to in Rev. xxi,
must have been considerable. He appears to have been at no loss for
language to express his ideas. While an absolute and almost perfect
simplicity in the construction of sentences predominates everywhere in
his book, the writer still shows that he was capable of exhibiting a dif-
ferent arrangement; see Rev. 18: 11—13.

I am aware that the first impression of most readers is, that the
Apocalypse differs widely from all the other books of the New Testa-
ment, those of John not excepted. In some respects this impression is
correct. It is true, that in no other book do we find ourselves in the
midst of scénes like those presented here. But are we not bound, as
fair and candid investigators, to ask such questions as these: What
other book of the New Testament is one continuous series of prophecy?
What other book is throughout substantially and essentially a book of
poetry? What other book, from beginning to end, is filled with sym-
bols? “What book even of the Old Testament will compare with the
Apocalypse in this respect? What other book in the New Testament
discloses continuous scenes of such a nature throughout, as the Apoca-
lypse opens to our view? The germ of one part of the Apocalypse
(v—xi.) we may find, indeed, in Matt. xxiv, and in the corresponding
parts of Mark and Luke; but even there, we find the Saviour also em-
ploying tropes and symbols in a degree quite unusual. The plan of the
Apocalypse makes one continuous series of symbols necessary in order
to accomplish the writer’s object. Shall we wonder, then, that he em-
ploys them? The scenes, moreover, to which he introduces us, even at

256 § 15. PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE AND STYLE.

the very outset, imply of necessity that he is going to tread upon pre+
ternatural or supernatural ground. Some of his images are quite novel 5
at all events, the costume and the circumstances are novel. He is no
mere imitator any where. When he presents scenes, the prototypes of
which may be found in the Old Testament, he arrays them in his own
peculiar drapery, and places them in positions which satisfy his own
judgment and promote his own design. What wonder then, since he is
traversing a supernatural world, that he presents us with objects new,
strange, and different from any within the domain of other writings in
the New Testament? The Apocalypse, designed for such an object as
it is, would be but a tame and spiritless book, were not this the case.
The vigour and activity of John’s imagination lead him of course to
present us with glowing pictures. Orvental taste discloses itself in these.
The locusts and the horsemen, for example, in chap. ix, are altogether
of an oriental cast. They bear the stamp of oriental excitement and
vivacity, and (I may add) of oriental taste for the marvellous. But
why should we allow to Arabian and Persian poets liberties to roam in
the wide and almost boundless field of imagination, and deny to John a
privilege granted freely to others ?

Put now all these considerations together, and then ask: Whether the
apparent novelty of the apocalyptic style is not to be ascribed mostly to
the circumstances that have been mentioned? Is it not reasonable to
expect such a kind of book as the Apocalypse, from a highly imagina-—
tive oriental man, himself a Hebrew, and having all the Hebrew pro-
phetic models before him? The seeming strangeness or peculiarity of
the Apocalypse is the result of comparing other New Testament books
with it, and of not comparing the Old Testament prophecies, and the
oriental taste in matters of this nature. I do not wonder, indeed, at
the impression which most readers receive, in slightly studying the
Apocalypse ; but I do wonder, that critics and commentators have not
given more attention to the nature and circumstances of this book, and
have not furnished us with a better account of its imagery and its sym-
bols.

-In a supernatural world, all—all—must be in a certain sense new.
Why should it be counted strange, that the writer has recognized this,
and made his actors and his scenes to comport with the world in which
they are found? Could a man of talents and vivid imagination, and
(I may add) of genuine oriental taste, do otherwise in executing his
plan than John has done?

I cannot resist the feeling that many of the objections which have
been made against the Kposulyipie as a work of John the Evangelist,
have arisen from overlooking considerations of such a nature as those
now suggested. A writer moving in a supernatural world—or in a re-

§ 16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 257

gion of: trope and symbol and visions—is in a condition exceedingly dif-
ferent from that of the grave and simple historian, or of the didactic
reasoner and preacher. Let us really allow this now in its full latitude,
and we shall no longer be at a loss to account for the peculiar character-
istics of the language of the Apocalypse.

$16. Place and Time of writing the Apocalypse.

The first of these inquiries is not of any serious importance, in re-
spect to the book which is the object of our present investigation.
Whether the Apocalypse was written at Patmos, at Ephesus, or at any
other particular place, is a question which when settled does not alter
its object or its contents; and consequently it cannot be of essential
importance to any hermeneutical inquiries into the meaning of this
prophecy. Still, it belongs to the literuture of the book to say some-
thing upon this topic; and I must therefore briefly touch upon it.

1. The Place.

The writer of the Apocalypse would seem to have settled the ques-
tion in regard to the place where the apocalyptic visions were seen, by
his own declaration. J John, says he, your brother and companion in
affliction, ... was in the isle called Patmos, on account of the word of
God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, 1:9. However strange it may
seem, yet critics of great name have understood this declaration as only
a poetical fiction. Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament
(1810), says: “The banishment of John to Patmos must be a mere
matter of imagination ; for otherwise, the author, by mingling historical
and unhistorical [i. e. unreal] circumstances, has presented us with a
hermaphrodite fiction, which no critical taste can justify. And a matter
of fiction it may be; for real history nowhere says, that John was ban-
ished to Patmos; and what ecclesiastical tradition says respecting this,
has no other source than the Apocalypse interpreted in an unpoetical
manner, which has substituted fact in the place of fiction ;’ Hinleit.
II. 367. ;

Yet this same writer, in his commentary on the Apocalypse publish-
ed in 1791, says: “ That you should entertain doubts [respecting the
actual exile of John in Patmos], the testimony of Tertullian, Origen,
Eusebius, and Jerome, forbids; unless you utterly abandon all credence
in those who are not our contemporaries, however probable the things
may be which they declare, and however constantly asserted by the
tradition of subsequent times. But this, [he very justly adds], would
be to give up all faith in ancient history ;” Comm. p. 31 seq. Which
of these representations by Eichhorn best comports with sound crit-

VOL. I. 33

258 § 16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

icism, may be left, I venture to say, to the judgment of every impartial
man, who has any good degree of information and skill m matters of
higher criticism.

But aside from this; what more reason is there to doubt that John
was in Patmos, when he saw the visions described in the Apocalypse,
than there is to doubt that Ezekiel was by the river Chebar, when
he saw the vision related in the first chapter of his work? Or that
Daniel was in Shushan, in the palace, in the province of Elam (Dan.
8: 2), when he saw the vision of the ram and the he-goat? Does any
one doubt, that what Hesiod says of his birth-place and emigration to
Boeotia, in his poem entitled Works and Days, is fact ? 1. 630—638. Or
that what Ovid says of his banishment to Tomi; or what Phaedrus
says of himself, in his Fables; or Martial, in his Epigrams; or Horace,
in his Epistles; is matter of fact? And is there any better reason for
regarding what John says of his being in Patmos, during his apocalyp-
tic vision, as fiction and not as fact?

If Patmos be merely a fictitious place, why should John select it ?
Why did he not rather choose Sinai, or Carmel, or Hermon, or the
Mount of Transfiguration where he had before seen Moses and Elijah
from the heavenly world conversing with Jesus? These were conse-
crated spots, as one would naturally suppose, and therefore they would
most readily occur to his mind, as appropriate places for a revelation.
Why choose a Grecian islet, not once named elsewhere in all the sacred
books, and scarcely twice or thrice by all the ancient writers of the
heathen world ? :

‘But’ says Eichhorn, ‘ banishment was the penalty for making pros-
elytes to the Christian religion, in those times; and Patmos was a very
appropriate place for exile. John, therefore, imagines that had been
done to him, which was se commonly done to Christians who were his
contemporaries ; and thus he places himself in the most complete soli-
tude, a condition most of all appropriate to such visions as the Apoca-
lypse relates ;’ Hinleit. § 190.

But could not John place himself as much in solitude upon Sinai, or
Carmel where Elijah saw the visions of God, or upon the Mount-of
Transfiguration? What is thjs, but an unsatisfactory reason for a fan-
ciful theory ?

‘There is another circumstance which confirms the impression, that
Patmos was the real, and not a fictitious, place of the apocalyptic vis+
ions. The writer says, first of all, that he was ‘a brother of those
whom he addressed, and a companion (cvyxowarg, participator) i the
affiction and kingdom and patience of Jesus Ohrist ;’ thus intimating,
that when he writes, his condition was one of suffering, like to that of
the persons whom he addressed. Not only so, but he intimates that he

§ 16. PLACE. .OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 259

has been placed in such circumstances, by reason of, or on account of,
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, du tov doyor cod
Dsod, nat Sic THY wagzeian ‘Inood Xeiorod, 1:9. He not only gives
his readers, then, a view of his own distressed condition, but he tells
them why he had been brought into it, viz. ‘on account of his adherence
to and promulgation of the Gospel.’ So we must tnderstand and trans-
late this passage; for in 6: 9, the writer speaks of the slain, lying at the
foot of the altar in heayen, as slaughtered duc cov Loyor cov Geov uai
die THY wagrvotar Hv sixor, i.e. because of their steadfast adherence to
the word of God as exhibited in the Gospel; and in 20: 4, he speaks
again of the martyrs. who had been slain dia rv waezvotar [nood xa
duc 20v Loyor tov Yeov. These passages show at the same time the idiom
of the Apocalypse, and the true meaning of the writer when he employs
such phraseology. In these two passages, he can mean only and mere-
ly, that the martyrdom referred to, in both. cases, was occasioned by
previous adherence to the Christian faith and perseverance in defending
and propagating it. In like manner, John was é OAdper at Patmos, be-
cause he had pursued the like course. And this view of the subject, the
common and classical use of dv serves to confirm. . 4: with the Ac-
cusative is not employed to designate future purpose or object in view,
but stands before nouns which indicate past causes or grounds why any-
thing: is, or is done. It marks the relation of reason, or cause on ac-
count of which anything is, or is done, as one already extant, and not
that of purpose, object, or end, yet to be pursued. Clearly and certain-
ly, then, in 1: 9 it is employed in. such a way and for such a purpose.
Now if. we assume, that the presence of the writer at Patmos is only
édeal, according to Eichhorn and others, then we must: bring out the
following sentiment : ‘I was in a spiritual ecstasy, and so imagined my-
self as being at Patmos, because I had persevered in defending and
propagating the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ ;’ and
moreover; ‘I was év OAiwet, because of a merely ¢deal transfer thither.’
Does John, or would any man of sense, write thus?

Liicke (Stud. und. Krit. IX. p. 600) has given another turn to 1: 9,
viz. ‘John was transported to Patmos, in order that he might receive
the Revelation there, or be. made the subject of apocalyptic visions
there” Why this was necessary, or specially useful, to John as the
subject of divine communications, he does not tell us. But he feels that
duc before the Accusative stands somewhat in the way of such an exe-
gesis, inasmuch as it purports that John went, or was sent, to Patmos
on account of some cause or ground antecedently existing, and not merely
for the accomplishment.of some end yet future. Yet he says even this
difficulty may be removed; and he appeals to due in, Rom. 4: 25 and

Phil. 2: 30, as marking the relation of a future end to be accomplished.

260 § 16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

But in this appeal he cannot be sustained. In Rom. 4: 25, Paul says
of Christ: “Who died did 7& nuguntomata juay, and rose di. Hy
dixaicoow nua.” As mere facts or actual oecurrences, both the offences
and the justification were indeed future at the time of Christ’s death ;
but as motives or grounds, or in other words as things already regarded
as certain in the counsels of God, and now about to take place, they
were fully in the mind of Christ before his death and resurrection.
They were the moving causes of his sufferings. In Phil. 2: 30, there
is still less ground to sustain the appeal. Paul says of Epaphroditus:
“duc. 20 oyor tov Xouscov mezou Puvacov nyyise, on account of the work
of Christ he drew near to death ;” which, by the aid of the clause zaga-
Bolevocusrog ty wry7 (this immediately follows), we may well explain
as meaning, that the work of Christ which he had before performed,
brought Epaphroditus into the danger in question. Nor is there any
passage in the New Testament, that I have found, which will fairly sus-
tain the sense here given by Licke to d:@; nor will he find any instance
of such a nature allowed either by Winer in Gramm. § 53. ¢. da, or by
Kiuhner in Gramm. § 605. II. ds. Besides this philological difficulty,
one might well ask: Why should John speak of himself as éy OAiwes
and OvyXxOWOPOS with others, in reference: to his being sent to Patmos
in order to receive a revelation there? Everything in the whole pas-
sage is unnatural, when it is viewed in such a light; and neither gram-
mar nor congruity allows us so to explain it.

That John, then, was at Patmos, and was there as an exile, when he
saw the apocalyptic visions, there remains no good reason to doubt.
And so the united voice of antiquity declares. Whether this union of
the ancient fathers depends on any other testimony, except what John
himself has given in 1: 9, we do not and cannot know, unless some new
evidence respecting this matter should hereafter be presented. Enough,
if it has been shown what the proper meaning of John’s words is.

The opinion advanced by some critics, that dia zor Loyor Pod, ete.
implies that John went to Patmos for the sake of preaching the Gospel,
is liable to two objections, viz. first that dié cannot be so applied to a
Suture object or purpose ; secondly, that a little rocky islet, with seareely
any inhabitants, and almost entirely a desert, was not a probable place
of resort for a missionary, while millions around him in Asia Minor were
yet heathen. The supposition scarcely merits serious notice.

But another question has been connected with the place of vision,
viz. that which respects the place of the actual composition or the wri-
ting out of the Apocalypse. In general the earlier Christian fathers
do not speak definitely in respect to this. Eusebius, in his Chronicon
on the 14th year of Domitian’s reign, says of John: Eig [ezwov éooi-
Cecau’ tvda rv Anoncdupw sdgaxer, wg dyhot Eignvaivg. Both Ire-

§ 16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 261

naeus and Eusebius, then, speak only in general terms, viz. they speak
only of John as having seen the visions at Patmos. In another passage
of Eusebius, (Kec. Hist. III. 28), he speaks of John’s banishment, and
also quotes from Irenaeus a passage which applies the verb éaoady
(seeing the visions) only to the author of the Apocalypse. | Origen, ap-
pealing to Rev. 1: 9, says of John: “Eoixe tiv amonchuww év ci vio@
tedewponeret, he seems to have seen the Apocalypse in the island [of
Patmos]. Victorinus in his Latin Comm. (about A. D. 300), still ex-
tant in a somewhat mutilated state, makes or alludes to a distinction,
perhaps, between John’s seeing the apocalyptic visions, and writing them
down. He first states, that John was in metallum damnatus, i. e. con-
demined to the mines in Patmos by Domitian; he then says, that he
there widit Apocalypsin ; and then, being released after the death of
Domitian, sie postea tradidit hane eandam quam acceperat a Domino
Apocalypsin ; Bib. Max. Pat. III. p. 419. Liicke translates tradidit by
niedergeschrieben, i. e. wrote down; which it does not necessarily mean,
but only to transmit or deliver over to another. Victorinus says, that
this traditio is what is meant in Rev. 10: 11, where the angel says to
John: Asi ce acd aoopytevoo. So far as I can see, this leaves the
question still undetermined, where the original writing down was per-
formed. Arethas, indeed, (Comm. in Rev. vii. in Opp. oecum. p. 713
seq. and Bib. Max. Pat. IX.) states, that John wrote at Hphesus. But
a writer of the seventh century, or late in the sixth, could have had
nothing more than hearsay, in relation to this matter. Jerome, at the
close of the 4th century, says of John: “In Patmos insulam relegatus,
scripsit Apocalypsin ;” Catal. V.

On the whole, it does not appear that in ancient times the question
was urged and discussed, whether John wrote down his visions at the
time when he saw them, or sometime afterwards; and consequently we
can get no satisfactory answer to this question from the ancient fathers.
We must resort, then, either to the nature of the case, or to the internal
evidence contained in the book itself.

As to the nature of the case, we do not know enough of the particu-
lars respecting John’s residence in Patmos and his return from that
place, or of the length of time that intervened between his visions and
the period of his return, to decide as to the probability of his performing
the task of writing after his return to Ephesus. The form of speaking
in 1: 9, 10, will not decide this, viz. éyevouyy é ty vyo@ . . . éyevdunr ev
nvsimore.. . xo nxovoe, etc. We cannot suppose John to have writ-
ten down the account of any vision, until after the vision had taken
place. It would be a matter of course, in giving an account of it, to
speak of the place where it happened, and to speak of it as past, i. e. to
employ an ‘Aorist or Praeterite tense, as in the passages above desig-

262 § 16. PLACE OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

nated. Whether -he wrote after his return to Ephesus, or immediately
or soon after thé vision had taken place, he would naturally. speak as he
has here spoken. Guerike, in his Fortgesetz. Beitr. p. 70, has not satis-
fied me of the contrary.

But there are internal evidences in the book itself, which render it
probable that the act of writing, if not simultaneous with the visions,
(which cannot well be deemed probable), was at least not long deferred.
In 10: 4, the writer tells us, that when he heard the seven thunders ut-
ter their voice, he immediately prepared himself to write down what
they had uttered, éuehdov yoaqen, the proximate future. A. voice from
heaven, however, forbade him to disclose it.. This shows, quite plainly,
that he intermingled the writing with the visions, i. e. that the disclo-
sures, which are many and diverse, are followed from time to time with
the act, on the part of the Apocalyptist, of writing them down, In the
like way, as it seems to me, are we to interpret the commands to write,
in 14: 13..19: 9, 21: 5. If any one should say, that a command to
write down the.particular things there disclosed, involves the idea that
other things were not then written, and that there was no command to
write those other things, I apprehend the 6 Aéwas youwas eg BiBdior,
in 1: 11, must be regarded as a refutation of this., And although this
passage may possibly be considered as merely referring to the seven
epistles to the seven churches of Asia, or at, most as merely a command
to write at some time, which might be sooner or later, yet 10: 4, would
help to correct an exegesis of this nature, and render the supposition of
a successive seeing of visions and writing them down quite probable.

It is hardly worthy a passing notice, that some have objected to the
supposition of writing down the Apocalypse at Patmos, that John, in
exile at such a place, cannot well be imagined to have possessed the
requisite materials for writing. But had not Ovid such materials at
Tomi? Was not Patmos very near the Asian shore, and at a small
distance from Ephesus itself, where John had so many friends and.de-
voted followers? What could be easier than for him to be secretly sup-
plied with the materials for writing, and thus maintaining a correspon-
dence with the churches over whom he had watched ?.. What obliges us
moreover to suppose, that he was not allowed to take such materials
with him? The Romans had two forms of exile ; the one was -depor-

tatio, i. e. perpetual banishment to a certain place, with loss of rights
and property ; the other was relegatio, which might be a temporary or
perpetual banishment, without being deprived of property or other civil
rights. Who can show us, that the exile of John was not one of the
latter class? ‘Such was that of Ovid, as may be seen in his Trist. IL.
135 seq.; and Tertullian twice applies relegatur to the banishment of
John, Apol. 5. De Praesc. Haeret..c. 36; and Jerome does the same.

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 263

‘Finally, the congrwity of the epistles to the churches, when consider-
ed as coming from ‘one removed at a distance, is much more evident and
satisfactory ; specially as it respects the church at Ephesus. I do not
say that John, while living at Ephesus, could not have addressed an
epistle to the church there. But this may be said, viz., that we find no
example of such a thing in any other of the New Testament epistles,
and such a transaction wears in itself an air of improbability. It is
more probable that the communication was from Patmos. The writer
speaks of himself as an exile, or at any rate as being éy Aiwa, at the
time when he wrote. He addresses the seven churches as being perse-
cuted and oppressed, 2: 10, 13. 3:10, al.. How could this be the case,
if Nero were already dead, and he returned from exile in consequence
of this? Would not the churches also have experienced the like deliv-
erance? The probability of John’s having written at Patmos amounts
to almost a certainty, when all these things are joined together and
placed in a clear light.

IL. At what Time was the Apocalypse written?

'A much more serious question than either of those which we have
just discussed, and one about which very different and even opposite
opinions have been formed and. maintained, by critics of high standing.
A majority of the older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion
of Irenaeus, viz., that it was written during the reign of Domitian, i. e.
during the last part of the first century, or in A. D. 95 or 96. Most of
the recent commentators and critics have called this opinion in question,
and placed the composition of the book at an earlier period, viz. before
the destruction of Jerusalem.

The opinion of the ancient Christian fathers seems to rest mainly up-
on the declaration of Jrenacus, in Haeres. V. 30, who lived at the close
of the second century, and who is the first writer that we know of, who
has said anything expressly on the point now before us. The declara-
tion alluded to runs thus: Ovde yee 200 mokhovd yodvor Emeadn [ny Ano-
nahvunc], GAAc oxedOv ent TIS yuEteous yEevecs, Meds TH Téhet tHg Ao-
petiavov aoxis, i.e. ‘the Apocalypse was seen, not long ago, but almost
in our generation, near the end of Domitian’s reign.’ These words of
Irenaeus are cited verbatim by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. III. 18, and V. 8.
See also III. 23. III. 20 ad fin. Jerome (Catal. V.) has combined the
account of Eusebius, particularly the passage in his Chronicon on the
14th year of Domitian (quoted above on p. 260), with that of Irenaeus,
and says: “ Quarto decimo igitur.anno, secundam post Neronem perse-
cutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus [J ohannes |,
scripsit Apocalypsin.” Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. II. 23) quotes a passage
from the Quis Salwus Dives of Clemens Alexandrinus ($ 42), which

264 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

runs thus: Ezed3 yee, cov regdrvov tehevencavros, and ths Tlarpov
Ths moov petnditer eis civ Eqecor, etc. The tyrant here meant is pro-
bably Domitian ; at least, although he is not named by Clement, it is
clear that Eusebius so understood the matter. Tertullian has also been
supposed by some, to be of the like opinion. His words run thus:
“ Tentaverat et Domitianus, portio Neronis de crudelitate ; sed qua et
homo, facile coeptum repressit, restitutis etiam quos relegaverat ;’ Apo-
loget. c. 5. In the preceding context he speaks of Nero’s persecution,
and in the words quoted he seems to intimate, that Domitian soon re-
laxed from his persecution, and recalled those whom he had banished.
But Eusebius (Ecc. Hist. III. 20), although he cites this passage of
Tertullian, states that only restoration of the exiles took place after the
death of Domitian, and by a decree of the Senate. Eusebius then adds,
that ‘ according to tradition, John returned from Patmos at that period,
and resumed his abode at Ephesus.’ How Eusebius understood Ter-
tullian, seems to be clear; but the words of Tertullian himself leave the
matter in doubt, and nothing certain can be drawn from them in respect
to John. In another passage he says: “ Ubi[sc. Romae] apostolus Jo-
hannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in in-
sulam relegatur.” Nothing here, or in the context, decides whether he
regarded this as happening under Nero or Domitian,

Origen, when he speaks of John’s banishment, merely says that ‘0.
Popaior Bactdedvg condemned him to it,’ without saying anything which
would decide whether he meant Nero or Domitian ; Orig. in Matt. Opp.
ed. de la Rue, III. p. 720.

Victorinus, whose Latin Commentary on the Apocalypse has already
been mentioned, when commenting on Rey. 10: 11, says: “ Quando
hoe [ Apocalypsin] vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmos, in metallum
damnatus a Domitiano Caesare.” A little after: “Interfecto Domi-
tiano .. . Johannes, de metallo dimissus, sic postea tradidit hance eandam
quam acceperat a Domino Apocalypsin ;” in. Bib. Max. HI. p. 419.
Again, on p. 420: “ Intelligi oportet tempus quo scriptura Apocalypsis
edita est ; quoniam tune erat Caesar Domitianus... Unus extat, sub
quo seribitur Apocalypsis, Domitianus scilicet.”

Sulpicius Severus and Orosius, both contemporaries with Augustine,
exhibit the like view of the time when the Apocalypse was written.
Thus Sulpicius: “ Domitianus . . . persecutus est Christianos, quo tem-
pore Joannem Apostolum in Pathmum relegavit ;—ubi ille . . . librum
sacrae Apocalypsis . . . conscriptum edidit ;’ Hist. Sac. Lib. II, in Bib.
Max. Pat. VI. p. 144 E. So Orosius: “ Domitianus... persecutio-
nem in Christianos...imperavit; quo tempore etiam... Johannes
Apostolus in Pathmum relegatus fuit ;” Lib. VII. ubi supra, p- 4386 H.

It is needless to produce more quotations. The like sentiment may

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 265

be found in Gregorius Turonensis (Cent. VI.), I. 24; Isidorus Hispa-
lensis (Cent. VIL), cap. 73 in Johannem ; Marianus Scotus also says:
“Sub Domitiano Johannes ...in Patmum insulam relegatus, Apoca-
lypsin vidit.”. The opinion of Jerome has already been stated above,
in connection with that of Eusebius.

To the many Latin writers, already adduced, might be added several
more Greek ones. The book De XII. Apostolis, attributed to Hippolytus,
makes mention of “Jeurrys ... 120 Aowsrvevov .. . opi dsig év [er-
no, & 9... Anoxdluww éscouro ; in Opp. Hippol. App. p. 30. ed.
Fabr. Of the same purport is a passage from the Martyrium Timothei,
produced by Photius in Codex 254. So also Suidas under the word
Aowtriavos. The last two writers belong to Cent. XT.

It is plain, then, that an ancient tradition existed, and was propagated
through succeeding ages, that the Apocalypse was written near the close
of Domitian’s reign, i. e. about A. D. 95, for Domitian died in Septem-
ber of 96. When such a report commenced we are unable to say ; but
Trenaeus is the first writer, so far as we know, who has recorded it.
And although the éea07, in the passage of Irenaeus (quoted above on
p- 263) has been differently interpreted by different critics, (e. g. the
ancient Latin translator of Irenaeus renders it v7swm est, viz. the beast;
Wetstein applies the verb to John himself; Storr, to the name of the
beast), yet I cannot think that any other Nominative than Anoxchuwig
can be fairly supplied here. So most of the ancients clearly understood
the matter ; and we may well acquiesce in their judgment, for it is sup-
ported by the obvious principles of interpretation.

Tf there were nothing else of a different tenor to be found respecting
the question before us, we should feel obliged to concede, that the opin-
ion is no longer to be controverted, which fixes upon the latter part of
Domitian’s reign as the period when the Apocalypse was composed.
But we know that the voice of antiquity is not uniform, in relation to
this subject. Epiphanius, speaking of John, says that “ he wrote his
Gospel, perce civ adrod and tho Hdcuov éncvodor, cyv éti Kiavdiov
yevouerny Kettougos,” i. e. he places John’s banishment and return
under the reign of Claudius, when the Jews were banished from Rome ;
edit. Colon. p. 434, Haer. 51. Again, speaking of John he says: moo-
gnrevourros év zoovorg Kihevdiov ... deinvopévou tod nace thy “Ano-
xaduww koyou moogpytixov, i.e. ‘who prophesied in the time of Clau-
dius .. . the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclo-
sed.’ This opinion of Epiphanius stands alone, among the ancients.
From what source he drew it, it is difficult to conjecture, unless indeed,
(as seems quite probable), he supposed John’s banishment to Patmos to
stand connected with the banishment of the Jews from Rome by Clau-
dius, A. D. 54. Acts 18:2. Yet as this decree of exile respected only

VOL. I. 34

266 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

the city of Rome, and had regard to Jews and not to Christians in gene-

‘ral, it would seem to have no bearing on the case. We must dismiss
this matter, therefore, merely with the remark, that no good grounds of
Epiphanius’ opinion are given, nor can any be well imagined. It would
seem that it must have been some vague rumour, which this (oftentimes
uncritical) father had heard, and which he has reported in the passage
before us; or else he must have drawn his‘own conclusion from the ban-
ishment abovementioned. Better ground has another report, which may
be here and there found among the ancients, viz., that John wrote the
Apocalypse during banishment to Patmos under the reign of Nero.
From A. D. 64 to the time of his death (an June A. D. 68), Nero car-
ried on a furious persecution against Christians, and banishment was a
very common thing under the Roman government. It might therefore
have been inflicted upon John, the leading teacher of Christianity at
Ephesus, the capital of Asia Minor.

The earliest notice of such an opinion may be found in a Fragment
of an ancient Latin writing, (probably about A. D. 196), first published
by Muratoriin his Antiq. Ital. IIL. p. 854, and attributed by many (yet
without good reason) to the presbyter Caius. C. F. Schmid has copied
it into his Offenbarung Johannis, p. 101 seq. The work contains a kind
of a catalogue of the New Testament Scriptures; and among other
things it says: “ Paulus, sequens praedecessoris sui Johannis ordinem,
nonnisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat ordine tali.’ John, then, in.
the first place, was Paul’s predecessor, according to this writer; next, as
John has written only to seven churches by name, in the Apocalypse,
Paul, following his example, wrote only to the same number by name ;
and thirdly, as the consequence of this, Paul must of course have had
the example of John in his eye. Now as Paul suffered martyrdom un-
der Nero, who died in A. D. 68, it follows that John, according to the
author of this Fragment, must have written the Apocalypse before that
period ; how long before, the Fragment does not intimate.

Thus much for this incondite composition, on which, as it seems to
me, no great reliance can be placed for anything of serious importance.
It may, however, be regarded as conveying the common impression of
that part. of the church where the author lived, that Paul, as a writer of
seven epistles, was preceded by John, who wrote to the seven churches
of Asia Minor.

The passage in Tertullian, which is quoted on p. 264 above, is applied
by Newton to the banishment of John by Nero. But it contains no
certain evidence respecting the ¢#me when banishment took place. It is
true, indeed, that there is a passage in Jerome, which seems directly to
assert, that Tertullian meant to convey the idea, that what happened to
John was during the life of Nero. In Advers. Jovin. I. 26, Jerome

§16. TIMe OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 267

says: “Refert autem Tertullianus, quod a Nerone missus in ferventis
olei dolum, purior et vegetior exiverit quam intraverit.” But imme-
diately before this passage, he speaks of John as exiled by Domitian.
How, it has been asked, could he thus contradict himself, in the same
breath? To avoid this it has been proposed to read Romae, instead of
a Nerone. But all Mss. and editions are against it. Nor do I appre-
hend that Jerome’s credit for consistency is much jeoparded by the
passage in question, as it now stands. When Jerome says « Nerone,
he is only giving his views of what Tertullian had said, and not his own
opinion. Jerome’s view of Tertullian’s opinion may be correct. Be-
sides, Tertullian does not here speak of John’s exile.

In the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, the title page declares, that
tt was written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar. But
the value of this testimony is somewhat weakened by the fact, that the
old Peshito er Syriac version of the second century, has never com-
prised the Apocalypse. The version of this book which now appears in
our Syriac New Testament, was copied in the East by Caspar, whose
residence was in western Asia; from him it came into the hands of
Scaliger the younger; thence to the library of Leyden; and there it
was copied, and then published by L. de Dieu, in 1627. From this
edition, the Syriac Apocalypse in the London and Paris Polyglots was
taken. It is somewhat doubtful whether this version of the Apocalypse
belongs to the so-called Philexenian version, which was made about
A. D. 508. It would rather seem, however, that there was a version of
the Apocalypse into Syriac earlier than the Philoxenian; for Ephrem
Syrus, in his Commentaries (century IV.), often appeals to the Apoca-
lypse; and it is generally supposed that he did not understand Greek,
and therefore must have read it in Syrdac ; see Hug’s Introd. § 65. If
this view is correct, then does the inscription mentioned above acquire
additional importance. It becomes an early, as well as a plain, testi-
mony respecting the current opinion in the East, with regard to the
time when the Apocalypse was written.

Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, (of an uncertain age, but
probably near the commencement of the sixth century), in his Greek
Commentary on the Apocalypse which is still extant, says, in his re-
marks on Rev. 6:12, that there are not wanting those who apply this
passage to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus ; but at the
same time he gives his own opinion, that it is rather to be applied to the
coming of Antichrist, ete. Again on Rev. 7:1 he says: “These things
are referred by some to those sufferings which were inflicted by the
Romans upon the Jews ;” but he gives his opinion again, that they may
with more propriety be referred to the coming of Antichrist. And so
(on Rev. 7: 2) he also says: * Although these things happened im part

4

\

268 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

to Jewish Christians, who escaped the evils inflicted on Jerusalem by
the Romans, yet they more probably refer to Antichrist,’ etc. ; in which,
there appears to be somewhat of inconsistency, or at least of adopting a
double meaning.

It is plain, then, from what Andreas says in these passages, that in
his time there was one class of interpreters, who referred a part of the
Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and of course believed that
this book was composed before that event. took place.

Arethas, the successor of Andreas in office, who lived near the mid-
dle of the sixth century, has also left behind him a Greek commentary
on the Apocalypse, which consists of little more than extracts from An-
dreas and other expositors. In his remarks on Rev. 1:9 he says:
“That John was banished to the isle of Patmos under Domitian, Eu-
sebius alleges in his Chronicon.” He does not appear to give his own
opinion here. On Rev. 6: 12 he says: ‘Some refer this to the siege of »
Jerusalem by Vespasian, interpreting all tropically.. He then cites from
Andreas, in order to show that many referred it to the time of Anti-
christ. But on Rey. 7: 1, he appears to speak. out his own opinion:
“ Here then were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were
to befall the Jews, in their war against the Romans, in the way of aveng-
ing the sufferings inflicted upon Christ.” After averring that Josephus’
history accords with the fulfilment of these predictions, he further re~
marks, that “these things will still more evidently happen, near the
coming of Antichrist.” Nothing is plainer, here, than that Arethas ad-
mitted a double sense of prophecy ; and in accordance with this he might
consistently find two fulfilments of a prediction, as he seems to have done.
Still, in order to do this, he must have supposed the Apocalypse to have
been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem. But he is even
more explicit still on Rev. 7: 4, where he says: “ When the Eyange-
list received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were in-
volved, was not yet inflicted by the Romans.” There can be no doubt,
therefore, what his own view was, of the time in which the Apocalypse
must have been written. When Liicke (p. 409) speaks of him, in re-
ference to these passages, as confused and contradictory, he could hardly
have adverted sufficiently to the fact, that in the seemingly contradic-
tory passages, Arethas only cites the opinion of others. What Arethas
says on Rev. xi. would rather afford some oceasion fer the remark of
Liicke.

Berthold cites the Martyrium Timothei as exhibiting evidence of an
opinion among the ancients, that John was banished to Patmos under
the reign of Nero; Berth. Einleit. IV. p. 1831. The purport of what
this document says, is, that ‘under Nero’s reign John made a voyage to
sea, where some accidents befel him.’ But this work is so fabulous,

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 269.

and of such an uncertain age, that no serious reliance can be placed:
upon it.

The Synopsis de Vita et Morte Prophetarwm, ascribed to Dorotheus
bishop of Tyre, but probably not written until the sixth century, as-
cribes John’s exile to Trajan; but it states only, that he wrote his Gos-
pel at that time, and mentions that others fixed upon Domitian’s reign
for these events. The author does not seem to pretend, that he has
any certain knowledge; and the whole document is of little worth. Bib.
Max. III. p. 426.

Berthold (ubi supra) appeals to the Ohronicon Alexandrinum, in or-
der to confirm the idea, that John returned from Patmos at the com-
mencement of Vespasian’s reign. But this work was written after A. D.
630, (down to which it brings its chronology). Moreover, the Chroni-
con has merely copied Jerome’s opinion, and sets John’s return in 96,
under Nerva who succeeded Domitian. Besides, the Chronicon is contra-
dictory of itself. On Olymp. 212 it makes his banishment to have hap-
pened in A. D. 78; and on Olymp. 218 it fixes it in the thirteenth year
of Domitian, i. e. A. D. 94. Afterwards it says, that the time of John’s
exile was fifteen years; and yet it avers, that he was restored in the
first year of Nerva, A. D. 96. It need not be said, after this exhibi-
tion; that the writer has thrown together all sorts of opinions, without
any investigation of them, and that he had none of his own, or none
which was worth any regard. It is useless to appeal to such documents.

It remains only to mention Theophylact (Cent. XI.), who says, in
Pref. to. Comm. in Evang. Johannis: Ev [acum ry om éoouctos
duarelav, wera touéxorta dvo én THG TOV yoLoTOD cvadjWens, i. e.
‘when he [John] lived an exile in the island of Patmos, 32 years after
the ascension of Christ.’ This would be A. D. 65, and under the reign
of Nero.

Such is the state of ancient testimony respecting the point now before
us. It is divided mainly between the time of Domitian and that of Ne-
ro. Some solitary conjectures about the time of Claudius and of Tra-
jan we find; but they are not entitled to any serious notice.

If now the number of the witnesses were the only thing which should
control our judgment in relation to the question proposed, we must, so
far as external evidence is concerned, yield the palm to those who fix
upon the time of Domitian. But a careful examination of this matter
shows, that the whole concatenation of witnesses in favour of this posi-
tion hangs upon the testimony of Irenaeus, and their evidence is little
more than a mere repetition of what he has said. Eusebius and Jerome
most plainly depend on him; and others seem to have had in view his
authority, or else that.of Eusebius. The manner and form of the testi-
mony plainly show this. In such a case, the concatenation of witnesses

270 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

goes to prove how widely the tradition mentioned by Irenaeus had
spread, rather than to establish the degree of credit which it deserved.
I have other remarks to make on this subject; but many of them I
shall defer until we have examined the INTERNAL EVIDENCE, which the
Apocalypse exhibits respecting the time when it was composed. For
the present I would add, that the diversity of opinion, which, as it seems,
existed among the ancients relative to the time of composition, can well
be accounted for only on the ground, that the conclusions respecting it
were rather the result of constructive exegesis, than of definite historical
tradition. John was banished to Patmos, on account of his adherence
to and propagation of the Christian religion. So the ancients in mass
understood Rev. 1:9 to mean. But this passage does not say when this
happened. Of course, so far as this is concerned, there was room for a
variety of suppositions. History discloses that the Jews, under the
reign of Claudius, (probably in A. D..54), were banished from Rome,
Acts 18: 2. In the early stage of Christianity, Christians and Jews
were often confounded by the Romans; and Suetonius (Claudius, cap.
25) seems to attribute their banishment to Christianity, when he says,
that the Jews were twmultuantes Chresto [Christo?] tmpulsore. Epi-
phanius fixes upon that period, as we have already seen, p. 265 above;
and Grotius, Hammond, and Storr, labour to support this view. Again;
it is certain that Nero persecuted Christianity for some three and a half.
years, and John was at Ephesus at least during a part of this period,
viz. between A. D. 64 and 68. Consequently he might have been ban-
ished at that time, and have written the Apocalypse at Patmos; and
this was supposed to be the case by some, as we have seen above. Once
more; Domitian persecuted Christians for some time, and banished many
of them. John was living at the period of this persecution also, and
might have been banished. ‘That such was the case, Irenaeus, and
many after him, believed; as we have already seen, pp. 263 seq. above.
So far as Rey. 1: 9 is concerned, there is nothing in it which contradicts
either of these suppositions; certainly neither of the last two. Readers
of the Apocalypse, in ancient times, who were not intent upon searching
out the internal evidence throughout the book respecting the time of its
composition, but expected the announcement of this merely at the out-—
set, if anywhere, might easily be led to form different opinions as to the
time referred to in 1: 9; and these opinions would of course be affected
by their views of the meaning of the book. If it was viewed as in part.
a prediction respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, then of course the
composition of the book would be looked upon as having taken place an-
terior to that event; if, however, all‘the former part. of the work was'
referred merely to the coming of Antichrist, or to any event of the times
that followed the first century, then the era of Domitian might be fixed

ee.

¢

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 271

upon, without any apprehension of difficulty. But even this latter class
of interpreters were divided. Hegesippus (in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. IIT. 19.
20), and possibly Tertullian (Apol. c. 5), seem to suppose the return of
John from Patmos to have happened during Domitian’s lifetime. Eu-
sebius (Chron. in ann. 14 Domit.) supposes it to have taken place under
Nerva, after Domitian’s death; and with him Clemens Alex. and Je-
rome appear to coincide, see p. 263 above. Victorinus (see p. 264
above) has added another circumstance, viz. in metallum damnatus, i. e.
condemned to the mines (?) in Patmos. All this variety of opinion
makes strongly against any uniform and certain historical tradition with
regard to the subject before us. We have seen, also, that the Synopsis
attributed to Dorotheus (p. 264 above) fixes even upon the time of Tra-
jan for the exile of the apostle ; on what ground, it would be difficult to
say.

That John was banished to Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse there,
or at least saw the vision there, seems to be a fact plainly and explicitly
vouched for in Rev. 1: 9; and I know of no good reason for disbeliev-
ing this. On this point, all the opinions of antiquity, discrepant in other
respects, fully agree. So much John himself says in\ this passage, and
no more. Whether other facts of his book do not imply something
more definite, is another question yet to be investigated. But it is plain,
that the ancient writers did not look into the book at large for the chro-
nology of the composition. Beyond the testimony of John himself,
there is such a diversity of views, as serves to show that mere floating
reports and surmises were the basis of these views. Were not this the
case, how could there have been so great a variety of opinions about a
simple matter of fact?

That this is a correct view of the subject, seems to me to be strongly
supported by the passage of Origen, to which allusion has already been
made on p. 264 above. Mark his words: ‘O dé Payaiwr Baoidevs, wg
7 mapadoots dwWaoxst, noertEedinace TOY Tocvyny MLOTUQOVITE Ouce TOV a
cdndelus Loyor eis Llézpov thy vgoor diddoxgr d8 ta megi tod magrv-
oiov savtov Todrens, uy Léyor zig aator nacedinaoce puoxor ey ti
"Anouadowe tobca [1:9]. Kot goixe civ ‘Anondluww iy th vpow
reGewonuevet. Opp. in Matt. ili. p. 720, dela Rue. That is: ‘The
King of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned John, who bore
testimony, on account of the word of truth, to the isle of Patmos.
John, moreover, teaches us things respecting his testimony [or martyr-
dom], without saying who condemned him when he utters these things
in the Apocalypse. “He seems also to have seen the Apocalypse [i. e.
the visions of the Apocalypse] in the island.’ This remarkable pas-
sage deserves special notice. We cannot suppose Origen to have been
ignorant of what Irenaeus had said, in V. 30; see p. 263 above. Yet

Zim § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

Origen does not at all refer to Irenaeus, as exhibiting anything deci-
sive with regard to which Roman emperor it was who banished John.
He does not even appeal to tradition, as according with the report of
Irenaeus. Moreover he notes expressly, that John has not himself de-
cided this matter in the Apocalypse, wy A¢yov cig adtov xaredixace. If
now he regarded the opinion of Irenaeus as decisive in relation to this
subject, how could he have failed, on such an occasion, of appealing to
it? Itis evident that he refrains from giving an opinion himself, on
the point in question, because John has omitted to decide it in the pas-
sage referred to, viz. 1:9. If now he had considered tradition as de-
ciding it, would he not naturally have said so? We cannot well come
to any other conclusion here, than that Origen knew of no way in
which this matter could be determined; since he viewed John as
having passed it by in Rev. 1: 9. Such an opinion from such a man as
Origen, the greatest critical scholar of the first three centuries, is enti-
tled to very serious consideration ; and I do not perceive how we are to
draw less from it than the conclusion, that Origen did not regard the
question respecting the time when the Apocalypse was written, as set-
tled by anything within his knowledge.

That Irenaeus himself possessed any other knowledge, in relation to
the time when the Apocalypse was composed, than what he drew from
the exegesis of Rev. 1:9, may well be doubted. But on this point
more will be said, after we have taken a view of the internal evidences
of the book itself.

J. Tue Seven Epistirs. Whoever reads them with attention, will
easily perceive that there is developed in them a state of the churches
in various respects different from that which is disclosed in the earlier
epistles of Paul. Scarcely, if at all, in any of these epistles, is a state
of active persecution developed, which proceeded, or could proceed, to
the destruction of life and the confiscation of property. In some of them,
e. g. 2 Thess. ch. i., we see indeed that a bitter hostility towards Chris-
tians is indicated ; but it seems to proceed from those who not improba-
bly were superstitious and unbelieving Jews. Occasional references else-
where are also to be found, of more or less of opposition on the part of the
world, whether Jews or Gentiles, against Christianity. Nothing could
be more natural or probable than this. But of persecution unto impri-
sonment, banishment, and death, Paul scarcely speaks, until his own
life was put in peril, after the Neronian persecution began.

How different in the epistles prefixed to the Apocalypse! ‘The first
annunciation of the coming of Christ, Rev. 1: 7, is accompanied with
the declaration, that “ they who pierced him shall see him, and all the
tribes of the land shall wail because of him.” Who then were they
that pierced him? Were they not the Jews? If the Romans took any

“ibe

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 273

part in doing this, it was a merely ministerial and subordinate part.
The Jews were the instigators and the proper authors of the deed.

Here then, on the very front of the book, is exhibited a title-page, as
it were, indicative of a conspicuous part of the contents of the work.
The punishment of the unbelieving and persecuting Jews must follow
the coming of the Lord; and this it is one leading object of the book to
illustrate and confirm. If so, then the prediction must have preceded
the event predicted.

But apart from this leading hint respecting the design of the book,
the seven epistles contain intimations throughout, more, or less direct,
that an active state of persecution was going on when the epistles were
written. This has already been somewhat fully developed on pp. 222
seq. above, and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say, that
the very mold in which all these epistles were cast, is plainly indicative
of the circumstances in which they were written. They were circum-
stances of peculiar trial. A great contest was going on. Some of the
churches had swerved from the fervor of their first love; in others, her-
esies had risen up; in some, wicked seducers were playing their part.
These churches, moreover, seem to have had regular officers, and to
have been orderly constituted. The éyyehog éxxdyoiug is everywhere
addressed, at first; but through him the whole body of the church are
admonished and encouraged.

Several of these churches, perhaps most of them, had been planted by
Paul; but they had been built up and nourished, as it would seem, by
John. When Paul addressed the church at Ephesus, the state of things
was plainly quite different from what the letter to the same church indi-
cates, when John wrote. Some seven or eight years probably had in-
tervened, between Paul’s letter and the epistle of John; a time suffi-
cient to account for any of the changes which seem to have taken place.
The person who addresses the seven churches, plainly regards himself
as connected with them all, and as having the superintendence of all.
He considers himself as entitled to utter threatenings, or promises of re-
ward; to command discipline, or to insist on patience and obedience.
In a word, all this seems well to chime in with the view of the ancients,
viz., that John, some time before the destruction of Jerusalem, came to
Ephesus and dwelt there, and went out thence on missionary excursions
into the regions round about that city.

All this, indeed, may be true of the churches and of John’s relation
to them, in the time of. Domitian, some quarter of a century later; and
so. the argument is not conclusive. But all this moreover may be true,
respecting the Asiatic churches in Nero’s time. There is no improba-
bility in it, but the contrary; so that the objections which haye been
made to the early composition of the Apocalypse, on the ground that

VOL. I.

oe

274. § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

the condition of the seven ‘Asiatic churches in Nero’s time does not corres-
pond tothe tenor of the seven epistles to them, has no good foundation.

II. In Rev. 6: 9, 10, we are presented with a view of martyrs alrea-
dy slain in the cause of Christ, crying for retribution upon their perse-
cutors. Their petition is favourably received; but they are bidden to
“wait a little time, until their fellow servants and brethren, who were
to be slain as they had been, should complete their number,” vy. 11. Liicke
and Ewald assign the reign of Galba, (the last half of A. D. 68), as the
period in which the Apocalypse was written. But it is a fact, in respect
to which the voice of antiquity is but one, that the persecution begun by
Nero ceased with his death, (June 9th, A. D. 68). How then could
such a view as this be held out by the writer of the Apocalypse, after
the persecution was already suspended, or rather, after it had ended ?
Tf it be said, that’ the interval between Nero’s death and the time when
thé news of it reached Ephesus, or Patmos, may still be selected, as the
one in which the Apocalypse was written; this answer will hardly meet
the case. But very few days could elapse before it must be known at
Ephesus. In less than twenty-seven days the news had reached Alex-
andria in Egypt, and brought out an edict there in which Galba was ac-
knowledged as emperor; see Rhein. Musaeum fiir Philol. ete. IL p. 68.
Liicke, p. 253. In less than half of that time must the news have reached
Ephesus; and that John, if then at Patmos, would have been forthwith .
advertised by his friends, cannot reasonably be doubted. This is one,
among several reasons, why the time of writing the. Apocalypse cannot
be deferred until after the death of Nero and the suspension of persecu-
tion under Galba ; for persecution was evidently raging when the Apo-
calypse was written. At all events, such a passage as the one before
us puts at rest the supposition, that the Apocalypse was composed under
the reign of Claudius. No martyrs were then made among Christians,
certainly none that we know of, by the banishment of the Jews from
Rome in A. D. 54.

But there are evidences still more direct, in the Apocalypse, of its
composition before the destruction of Jerusalem. In chap. vii. we have
an account of the sealing in the forehead of 144,000 selected from the
tribes of Israel, who were to be exempted from the impending destruc-
tion. Why from the twelve tribes of Israel? Because the destruction
threatened, in connection with this event, was to overtake Judea. If
not, why should Jewish Christians alone be here mentioned and selected ?

Til. Again in chap. xi. we have an account of John’s commission to
measure the inner temple, the altar, and the worshippers, while the outer
part is given up to destruction by the Gentiles. How could such a com-
mand be supposed, in this case, if the temple had already been entirely
destroyed, as it was by the Romans? The transaction is indeed wholly

a

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 275

symbolical, and indicates that all which is outward and: ceremonial of
Judaism is to be destroyed, while all that is inward and. spiritual is to
be preserved. But, although allusions to the temple might be made
after its destruction, yet allusions to the altar and worshippers, in the
manner here presented, cannot be deemed probable, some twenty-five
years after the destruction of the whole.

If Herder, Eichhorn, and Heinrichs, are correct, in supposing that
the two witnesses of Rey. 11: 3 seq. are meant to symbolize the high
priests, Ananus and Jesus, who were slain by a faction in Jerusalem,
then, of course, must the composition of the Apocalypse, if it be pro-
phetic, precede the destruction of Jerusalem. But as these two witnes-
ses are indubitably recognized as Christians, (ucotvoi mov, v- 3), we
cannot attach any weight to such an argument.

In Rey. 11: 8, the dead. bodies of the witnesses are said to “lie in
the street of the great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt,
where our Lord was crucified.” Sodom and Hgypt are names which
very significantly describe the glaring vices and the oppression of the
great city. But this is not specific enough for the writer. Zhe place
where our Lord was crucified, he adds, in order to preclude mistake.
Here then is Jerusalem still surviving, active, hostile, persecuting to
death the Christian martyrs. This same city it is, which in the sequel
meets with the overthrow as predicted in ys. 13—19. How can we
avoid the conclusion, then, that Jerusalem was the city threatened ; and
of course that the prediction was written before the event ?

What Guerike (Fortgesetzte Beitrage, etc. p. 71 seq.) has objected
to such a view of Rev. y—xi, seems'to me quite inconclusive. He
alleges, that a ‘new Jerusalem, could not be spoken of, as it is in 21: 1
seq., provided the old city were. still remaining, But why not? Has
not John predicted the destruction of the old Jerusalem in chap. xi?
And if so, then why not predict a new and more glorious city in its
place, which would be the metropolis of the new spiritual kingdom? He
alleges also, that ‘the destruction of the literal Jerusalem is not, after
all, to be regarded as foretold in the Apocalypse, but everything said
in chap. xi. is to be regarded merely as symbolical.’ Very well: sym-
bolical then let it be, as to the general tenor of it. But there must be
some reality which is the basis of symbol, and of which symbol is the
representative. What then is the reality which lies at. the basis of the
symbolical names, Sodom and Egypt? The writer himself has told us ;
for he says that these names stand for “the place where our Lord was
crucified.” And was that place a literal or a figurative Jerusalem? In
a word; the whole of Guerike’s objection to such a view of the meaning
of the passage in Rey. xi. as has been given above, depends on his ex-
egesis of Rev.. v—xi. But an exegesis, which, like his, excludes a

276 $16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

reference to Palestine in this part, of the book, must be in the face of
all the rules of interpretation that we apply to other books. If there be
anything certain in the principles of hermeneutics, it is certain that
they decide in favour of a reference to Judea and its capital in Rev.
vi—xi. The very fact, moreover, that the destruction of Jerusalem
(chap. xi) is depicted in such outlines and mere sketches, shows that
it was then future, when the book was written. It is out of all question,
except by mere violence, to give a different interpretation to this part of
the Apocalypse. And to a view like this, in respect to the interpreta-
tion of the book, Liicke gives his assent; Einleit. p. 267 seq.

IV. Rev. xvii. professedly undertakes to explain the symbols of
the beast, introduced at the commencement of the second catastrophe in
the Apocalypse, chap. 13: 1 seq. The last verse of this chapter leaves
no room for mistake as to the application of the symbol. The woman
sitting upon the beast means “the great city which hath dominion over
the kings of the earth.” When John wrote the Apocalypse, no city
but Rome could be thought of as corresponding to this description. Be-
sides, in v. 9 the seven heads of the beast are said to symbolize “the
seven hills on which the woman sitteth,” i. e. the seven hills on which
Rome was built, the septicoll’s Roma of the Latin writers. There is
no room for mistake here. And as little room, it seems to me, is there
for mistake, in another part of the same explanatory chapter, viz. v. ©
10. Here it is said, that the seven heads of the beast also symbolize
seven kings, viz. of Rome. The writer proceeds: “ Five are fallen;
one is; the other has not yet come, but when he shall come, he will re-
main but for a short time.” That the Roman emperors were usually
styled Baowdeic¢, by the Greeks, needs no proof. That the line or suc-
cession of emperors is here meant, and not the primitive kings of Rome,
is certain from the connection of the five with the one who ts, and the
one who is to come. We have only to reckon then the succession of
emperors, and we must arrive with certainty at the reign under which
the Apocalypse was written. If we begin with Julius Caesar, it stands
thus: Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius ; these make up
the five who have fallen. Of course the Apocalypse was written dur-
ing the reign of Nero, who is the sixth, If, with some critics (Ewald,
Liicke, and some others), we commence with Augustus, then the Apo-
calypse was written during the short reign of Galba, who succeeded
Nero. ‘That the first mode of reckoning is the proper one, I shall en-
deavor fully to show in the Commentary on Rev. 18: 3 and 17: 10, and
in the Excursus connected with these passages. At most, only an oc-
casional beginning of the count with Augustus can be shown, in the
classic authors. “The almost universal usage is against it. The pro-
bability on other grounds is against Ewald and Liicke. Every part of

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 277

the Apocalypse shows, as we have seen, that persecution was raging
and instant, when the book was written. But this could not be true,
at most, but a few days after Nero’s death. Besides; when the writer
adverts to the shortness of time in which the seventh king would reign,
(which fits Galba especially, as he reigned but seven months), why, in
case he wrote during the reign of Galba, should he wholly overlook the
shortness of his reign, and advert in this respect merely to the succeed-
ing.reign of Otho? There is moreover, as it seems to me, a plain ref-
erence in Rev. 13: 10, to the juture death of Nero, as well as to his then
present cruelties : “If any one sends into exile, he shall go into exile :
if any one kills with the sword, he shall be slain with the sword. Here
is the faith and patience of the saints;” i. e. present circumstances call
on them to exercise faith in the preceding declaration and in the prom-
ises of God, and patience under their sufferings. All this is very ap-
posite to the time of Nero; but hardly to that of Galba.

Liicke seems to have been led to adopt his opinion in respect to the
time of Galba, principally by Rev. 17: 8, 11, in which it is said of the
beast: 7», xal ovx gor, xai mapéotas. The ovx gor seems to say, that
he who is spoken of, is no longer living. But I cannot regard this
matter in such a light. Nothing is more common in the predictions of
the prophets, than the use of the Praeter and the Present, in order to
designate future things. John seems simply to mean, that the beast
first exists as king, then disappears or dies, and afterwards (as was
generally supposed’ and had been predicted by the warzete) will reap-
pear. If ovx gotw obliges us to suppose that Nero was already dead,
then why does not xai avzdg dydod¢ éozt, in v. 11, oblige us to suppose
that Nero had already reappeared and become the eighth emperor?
And still further ; why must we not interpret the xai es ander bac-
yet as indicating, that Nero, having already reappeared, is now soon to
go to destruction a second time? It cannot be, that from such forms of
expression as these, under such circumstances, the actual chronology of
events is to be settled. The writer means simply to say, that the beast
symbolizes one of whom it might be said: “He was, and is not, and
will reappear.”

I might also add here, that the manner in which John speaks of the
beast in Rev. xiii. seq., sometimes using this symbol generically for the
Roman sovereignty, and sometimes specifically for the reigning empe-
ror, indicates that in the latter case Nero is meant. To whom besides
can 13: 3 (the deadly wound and the healing) be applied? Who but
Nero was the violent persecutor of the church at that period, in the
Roman empire? It is the destruction of this beast which John pre-
dicts; and from the manner in which he does it, it would seem that this
beast must have then been living. We cannot indeed rationally sup-

278 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

pose John to have believed the heathen predictions, that Nero would
rise from the dead and actually reappear as emperor. The most that,
we can reasonably suppose, is an allusion to the common report, and in
this way to give a hint as to the individual who is meant to be designa-
ted by the beast. In short, the more I reflect on these circumstances,
the more am I compelled to believe, that John wrote his book pending
the Neronian persecution.

For further illustration of these difficult passages, I must refer the
reader to the Commentary and Excursus, as mentioned above. My
present purpose is a limited one, viz., merely to get at the internal evi-
dence of the time when the book must have been written. Whether
Liicke and Ewald are in the right, when they begin the reckoning of
the emperors with Augustus, or whether those who begin it with Julius
Caesar are more correct, will make only a few. months of difference, at
the most, as to the time in which the Apocalypse was written. In
either case, it must have been composed before the destruction of Jeru-
salem.

If Abauzit and Herder are right in their exegesis, which assigns all
that is said in chap. vi—xix, to prediction respecting Judea, then of
course must the Apocalypse have been composed before Palestine was
overrun and Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans. But it is not possi-
ble to vindicate such an exegesis of Rey. xili—xix, without aban-
doning some of the main principles of interpretation; and, of course, I
shall not attempt to build any argument on grounds such as they assume.

Eichhorn (Einleit. § 157), and. after him Bleek (Zeitschrift, etc., II.
p- 251), assume that Vespasian is the sixth emperor; under whom, of
course, the Apocalypse was written. Consequently, they begin with
Augustus, and omit Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But at all events the
omission of these three emperors is without, any good authority. For
although, from the shortness and turbulent nature of their reign, Sueto-
nius speaks of the occurrences under them as a rebellio triwn principum
(in Vesp. 1), yet the same historian regularly includes them, in their
proper place, among the twelve Caesars whose lives he writes; and Ta-
citus in like manner gives a somewhat detailed account of their sove-
reignties, Hist. Lib. 1. seq. How can we rest a critical decision on
grounds so arbitrary as the assumption in question ?

Finally, it is not unimportant to remark, that the Apocalypse contains
frequent declarations, at the beginning and at the close, that the things
predicted therein will speedily take place. Of course it is reasonable, to
interpret these declarations as having respect at least to the main body
and leading part of the book. Yet it is not necessary to apply them. to
such brief passages as those in chap. xx. seq., which show, by their very
nature, that the fulfilment of them é» zayee is out of question. Now un-

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 279
a

less the main part of the work before us was fulfilled éy raye, the decla-
rations in question can hardly be deemed correct. See Rev. 1:1. 11:
14. 22:7, 12, 20; comp. 2:16. 8:11. To what events then can we rea-
sonably assign the declarations in Rev. vi—xix, if the destruction of
Judea and the fall of persecuting Rome be not included? And if they
are, then the Apocalypse must have been written previous to these
events. 7

Having thus completed our view ‘of the internal evidence of the
Apocalypse respecting the time of its composition, it may be proper
briefly to notice some objections of Guerike, drawn from this source,
against the earlier composition of the work. In his Fortgesetzte Bei-
trage (p. 81 seq.), he endeavours to show, that a longer time would be
requisite, in order to bring the seven churches to the state which the
apocalyptic epistles develops, than could have ‘elapsed between their
first conversion under Paul and his associates, and the year A. D. 68
or 69. But besides the fact, that we do not know when several of the
churches mentioned in the Apocalypse were first formed, I do not per-
ceive any force in the allegations of Guerike. From seven to ten years
is enough for any change of original character in the churches; at
least for any such change as the seven epistles indicate. It has indeed
been alleged, that the sects of the Nicolaitans and others mentioned in
two of these epistles, could not have been formed and matured so early.
But it is now generally conceded, and so even by Guerike himself, that
the names given to the heretical persons mentioned in Rev. ii. 11. are
not proper names, but merely symbolical ones. Of course, it is not ne-
cessary to suppose the existence of organized ‘sects, having such dis-
tinctive names. Persons, who acted like Balaam of old and enticed
others to idolatry and its associate vice fornication, there may have
been in some of the seven churches; and in fact it seems clear, that
such there were.

Guerike objects, moreover, to the earlier date of the Apocalypse, that
‘the Gospel and Epistles could not have been composed until after the
year 70; and if the Apocalypse was written before this, it seems won-
derful to him, that John should have made no reference to it in his
other and later books.’ But is not the argument quite as valid, when
turned the other way: If John wrote the Apocalypse after his Gospel
and Epistles, is it not strange that he did not refer to them? Guerike
labours, indeed, to show that the Apocalypse does refer to those other
books; but what is the nature of his argument? Mere similarity of
sentiment. That anything like a direct quotation or recognition of the
Gospel or Epistles, is contained in the Apocalypse, he has not at all
made out; nor can it be made out.

Still more unfortunate is Guerike’s argument from the comparative

280 § 16. TIME. OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

style of the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. . The former, (and so
the Epistles), is not unaptly conformed to the Greek idiom ; the latter,
he says, is full of Hebraisms, and the like. How came this? ‘John,’
says he, ‘wrote his Gospel in Ephesus or its neighbourhood, when in
the midst of his intercourse with Greeks. But he was at Patmos so
long, and moreover in such extreme old age, that he forgot his better
Greek style, and relapsed to his former Hebraistic diction and method.’
It will not be required of me, to show the improbability of such a sup-
position. John’s exile, whether under Nero or Domitian, could not
have been long; for neither persecution lasted longer than about three.
and a half years. And would a man forget a language which he had
spoken for half a century, if not more, during that period? Not to
mention, that the few persons at Patmos, with whom John could haye
intercourse, were probably Greeks.

Much more probable is the reverse of all this. If John wrote the
Apocalypse not long after he came to Asia Minor, it is quite probable
that his Greek was then strongly tinctured with Hebraism ; and such is
the style of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, if he did not write
his Gospel and Epistles until some ten or twelve years after this, there
was room for him to become more conformed to the Greek idiom; as in
fact he appears to be, in his Gospel and Epistles. The natural order
of things is thus preserved; and the probability is clearly on its side.

When. Guerike suggests (p. 87 seq. ut sup.), that ‘the Apocalypse
must probably have been written after the Gospel, because it has given
so much fuller views of the expansion and development of the kingdom
of God;’ I cannot perceive the force of his reasoning. . The Gospel of
John professes to adduce evidence that Jesus is the Christ, John 20: 30,
31; the Apocalypse professedly teaches the certainty, that the kingdom
of God will fully come. Must an author depart from his particular de-
sign in one book, in order to repeat the things which he has said in
another ?

The suggestion has often been made, that the fiery phantasy or lively
imagination everywhere exhibited in the Apocalypse, can with more
probability be predicted of John at some sixty years of age, than at
eighty-five or ninety. And speaking of this subject more huwmano, the
suggestion seems to be well founded. But Guerike (p. 94) insists that
‘this is nothing to the purpose, inasmuch as John was ¢nspired’ But
has he never read, that “the spirit of the prophets 7s subject to the pro-
phets?” Does he not know, that the inspired writers exhibit as much
diversity of character, in respect to style, as any other authors? And
all these traits of style, moreover, are in all cases in conformity with
their condition and acquirements. :

In fact, so little can be made out of considerations like these, that we

§ 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE. 281

need not be surprised to find that after all, Guerike, and the older wri-
ters who have maintained the later composition of the Apocalypse, de-
pend most upon the testimony of Irenaeus and other ancient fathers, for
the establishment of their position. What these witnesses have said,
has already been exhibited above, pp. 263 seq. But no testimony,
circumstanced as this is, can well establish such a point. The znternal
evidence of any writing which is not supposititious, must always out-
weigh testimony of such a nature, provided such evidence is sufficiently
plain and ample. And the appeal may be made to every impartial rea-
der, after the light which recent criticism has cast on this subject,
whether the evidence in the Apocalypse of its being composed anterior
to the destruction of Jerusalem, is not sufficiently plain and ample.
What bdok in the New Testament has as many diagnostic passages in
respect to time as this? We cannot safely, in the face of all these,
give credit to the mere opinion of Irenaeus, that the Apocalypse was
composed in the reign of Domitian.

I say this, with full recognition of the weight and value of Irenaeus’s
testimony, as to any matters of fact with which he was acquainted, or
as to the common tradition of the churches. But in view of what
Origen has said (see p. 264 above), how can we well suppose, that the
opinion of Irenaeus, as recorded in Cont. Haeres. V. 30, was formed in
any other way, than by his own interpretation of Rev. 1:9? Is it rea-
sonable to suppose, that a man of Origen’s stamp, who had an insatiable
curiosity about the sacred books, who spent many years in Palestine,
and who moreover flourished but a few years after Irenaeus, would have
been unacquainted with an early tradition, (if such there was), respect-
ing the time when the Apocalypse was written? And yet he does not
allude to such a thing. Irenaeus might be very honest, and doubtless even
was so, in his opinion about the time when John saw his visions. Ire-
naeus, moreover, as he himself tells us, was acquainted when a youth,
with Polyearp, a disciple of John. In his epistle to Florinus, (Euseb.
Hist. Ecc. V. 20), he says, that zai¢ ov he saw Polycarp and listened
to his discourses. Irenaeus was born about A. D. 100, and did not
write his book Cont. Haeres. or his epistle to Florinus, until he was
some seventy-five or eighty years of age, Is it wonderful that he should
have even made a slip in his memory, as to the time of John’s exile,
which happened a century before? Indeed, who can tell us whether
Polycarp said anything to him on the subject of the t¢me when the
Apocalypse was written? Or if he did, whether the particular date was
regarded as an object of importance by him? The time intervening
between Nero’s persecution and Domitian’s, is only some twenty-seven
or twenty-eight years. Banishment of Christians doubtless took place
under both. There were no monthly or yearly chronicles of such mat-

VOL. I. 36

282 § 16. TIME OF WRITING THE APOCALYPSE.

ters published in those days. There was even no common and general
era to which dates were referred. John lived through both persecu-
tions. He may have been banished during both. It is not at all im-
probable that he was, considering his authority and influence at. Ephe-
sus, the Roman capital of Asia Minor. Of course it was easy, a cen-
tury afterwards, to confound the two periods, as to such events as might
have happened under cither.. The most lively and impressive recollec-
tions of Irenaeus’s times, would be those of the nearest persecution. It
was easy and natural for Irenaeus, then, to attribute to the latter the
writing of the Apocalypse, provided no certain tradition had fixed it
earlier.. Irenaeus was at Lyons when he wrote his book on Heresies 5
and this was far away from the centre of early ecclesiastical traditions.
Without impeaching, then, his character or his credit, we may still be-
lieve that his exegesis of Rev. 1: 9 was not correct. We can scarcely
be authorized to attribute to him any nice erttical investigations in re-
spect to the Apocalypse. The opinions which he gives, in some pas-
sages of his works, respecting the meaning of that book, forbid us to do
so. Salva jide, then, we may suppose him in this case to have been
honest, but mistaken in his opinion.

After the view of ancient testimony which has been given above, it is
almost superfluous to repeat, that all succeeding writers hang upon Ire-
naeus as their support. The testimony in respect to the matter before.
us is evidently successive and dependent, not coétaneous and indepen-
dent. We may safely follow then the plain and unequivocal evidences
of the time when the Apocalypse was written, which are contained
within the book itself, and have already been exhibited in the preceding
pages. No other evidence can do away the force. of the author’s own
declarations.*

* It was only after a great portion of the present section was in type, and some
of it struck off, that Guerike’s Introduction to the New Testament (1843) came
into my hands; which, so far as he is concerned in the present discussion, would,
if | had been able earlier to consult the book, have superseded any answer to his
objections. In his new work, he has fully retracted his former opinions in respect
to the é¢me when the Apocalypse was written; see pp. 283 seq., specially Note 4
on pp. 239 seq., and also pp. 531 seq. In these passages the subject of the time
is summarily, but well and ably, discussed. In particular, there is one thing in
his Note above referred to which is new, and if well grounded, gives an entirely
new shape to the testimony of Irenaeus, which is cited above on p. 263, and which
seems to have been the principal support of the opinion adopted by so many of
the ancient fathers, and hitherto by most of the churches in modern times, viz.
the opinion that John wrote the Apocalypse during the reign of Domitian. Gue-
rike suggests, that when Irenaeus says, “ that the Apocalypse was seen not long
ago, but almost in our generation, sed¢ tO rédec THS Aopetvavov deze,” that the
adjective Jousteavon, (for adjective it may be, and if so, it is one which is generis
communis, and not the proper name of Domitian), belongs, in accordance with

§ 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 288

§ 17. Author of the Apocalypse.

If a solicitous inquirer in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse
should consult only the recent leading critics in Germany respecting

the Greek formations, to'the name Domitius, and not to Domitian which would
make an adjective of the form Sowstrarixds. If it were a proper name, he says
it should be written tov 4ousticvev. Now Nero’s name was Domitius Nero, and
not Domitianus, which is the name of the later emperor. It follows of course
that Irenaeus himself has testified to the fact, that the Apocalypse was written in
the time of Domitius Nero. Thus read and understood, all accords with the in-
ternal testimony of the Apocalypse itself.

The conjecture is very ingenious; or, if we must rank it higher, the criticism
is acute and discriminating. The usual fact is, that the nouns ending in ~vog,
form adjectives by -cxog, in order to avoid the repetition of the -vog. But still 1
have some doubts respecting this matter, which arise from the fact, that several
of the Greek fathers, end many of the Latin’ ones who understood Greek, do not
appear to have thought here of any other than Domitian, the twelfth Caesar.. It
was easy, indeed, to fall into such a mistake, if it be one, on account of the near
resemblance of the two names. But the leading reason’ which induces me to
doubt, is, the very unusual appellation of Domitius for Nero. Could Irenaeus
help feeling that his readers might be misled, by such a use of Joueredvov, in
case he meant Vero? This seems to me rather improbable. As to the phrase,
“almost in our generation,” I feel no difficulty about that. Lrenaeus was born
near the beginning of the second century, and he might say of the Apocalypse,
that “it was seen almost in his generation,’’ whether it was seen in Nero’s time
(A. D~ 68), or in the time of Domitian. But:at all events, Guerike’s new work
testifies to his candour and diligence in researches of this nature ; and when we
consider how strenuous and unflinching he had been, both in his Beitrage and
Fortgesetzte Beitrige, in maintaining the late composition of the Apocalypse, it
must be regarded as notable testimony to the strength of the critical evidence in
favour of the early origin of the Apocalypse, that so ardent a mind as that of Gue-
rike has been led, by a more ample study of the subject, to a most full and unre-
served retraction of his former views. And such would be the case, as I am fully
persuaded, with every candid mind that now believes in the late origin of the
book, should investigation be made as ample and as fair-minded as that made by
Guerike. If he is in the right, in his criticism on the word Soueridyov, past
opinions in respect to.it present one of the most singular cases of long continued
and oft-repeated philological error, which has ever come to my knowledge.

Having been unexpectedly called, by the reading of Guerike’s work, to a re-
view of the subject of ancient testimony respecting the Apocalypse, I take the
liberty in this Note, to suggest a few considerations, .in the way of addition to or
correction of what has been said above. The thoughts that [ intend to express,
were suggested by the reading of Guerike.

In citing the testimony of Clement of Alexandria (p. 264 above), | have con-
eeded that Clement probably meant Domitian, when he speaks of the tyrant (rv-
edvvov) as dying, and of John’s subsequent return to Ephesus. I now doubt
whether this was his meaning ; first, because Nero above all other Roman empe-
rors bore the name of riigorvos, among Christians of the early ages; and second-

284 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

this matter, he would scarcely suppose that there is any ground for be-
lieving that John the Evangelist and Apostle composed this book. More
than half a century since, Oeder, Semler, Corrodi, and others, not only
called in question the genuineness of the book, but heaped reproach and
contempt upon it. Michaelis, moreover, and others doubted, whether
the authorship of the apostle John is capable of being satisfactorily prov-
ed. But this was nothing new. Luther and others of his time enter-
tained similar doubts; and even in the third century Dionysius of Alex-
andria, and in the fourth Eusebius of Caesarea, were skeptical in regard
to the point in question.

The works of Herder and Eichhorn on the Apocalypse served, as we
have already seen, to rescue this book from the neglect and aesthetical
disgrace into which Oeder, Semler, and Corrodi had brought it, in Ger-
many. But even some of those who have contributed not a little to vin-
dicate the rhetorical honours of the book, are by no means fayourable to
its apostolic origin. The confidence with which some writers speak on
this latter subject, is deserving of particular notice. “In New Testa-
ment criticism,” says De Wette, “ nothing stands so firm, as that the
apostle John, if he be the writer of the Gospel and the first Epistle, did
not write the Apocalypse; or, if the latter be his work, that he is not
the author of the former;” Einleit. ins N. Test. § 189. So Ewald:

ly, because Clement, in connection with relating the return ot John to Ephesus,
tells the story of John’s journeying hastily, on horseback and on foot, in pursuit
of a young prodigal, This could hardly be expected of a man some ninety-five
years old. But if his return was at the close of Nero’s life, there is nothing im-
probable in the story.

Again, on p. 264, | have conceded. that the passages cited from Tertullian do
not decide what emperor was reigning, when John wrote the Apocalypse. I
have cited, in one case, only part of a passage, without adverting at the time to
the bearing which the rest of the passage would have upon the part cited, I now
give the whole: “ Felix ecclesia [Romana]... ubi Petrus passioni dominicae
adaequatur; ubi Paulus Johannis [Bapt.] exitu coronatur; ubi apostolus Johan-
nes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relega-
tur.” Now it strikes me, that Tertullian plainly means to class Peter, Paul, and
John together, as having suffered at nearly the same time and under the same
emperor. I concede that this is not a construction absolutely necessary ; but I
submit it to the candid, whether it is not the most probable.

If the preceding remarks are well founded, then Clement and Tertullian are to
be ranked with those fathers, who ascribe the Apocalypse to the time of Nero, or
to a period immediately afterwards. To the like purpose Guerike expresses him-
self, in a Note on p. 286.

Let me be indulged in one other remark. If the Gospel of John was. written
some eight or ten years after the Apocalypse, (and this is not only probable but
almost certain), how can John be supposed. to have written it ten years after the
reign of Domitian, i. e. when he was some 105 years old? It is not impossible, I
concede ; but is it not altogether improbable?

§ 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. 285

“ That the Apocalypse was not written by the same author who com-
posed the Gospel and epistles, is clear as the light of the sun, (in aprico
positum est”), Comm. p. 76. And to the same putpose F. Liicke,
whose Introduction has been these some years before the public, but
without any accompanying Commentary: “ Either all criticism of the
New Testament canon is but idle sport,” says: he, “or the result, viz.
that the author of John’s Gospel and first Epistle cannot be the author
of the Apocalypse, stands immovably fast ;” in Studien und Kritiken,
II. p. 819. A still later writer, Credner (Einleit. § 267), speaks with
no less confidence: “ Between the author of. the Apocalypse and the
apostle John there exists a diversity so deeply pervading, that even to
the mere supposition, that the Gospel and first Epistle were the produc-
tions of the same mind, when it had attained to higher spiritual pr6-
gress, which at an earlier period could have composed the Apocalypse,
no place can be given, since it would be altogether unnatural and inad-
missible.”

These are confident words, as all must admit. They come, moreo-
ver, from men of diverse theological sympathies and views—from men
also who, it must be admitted, are highly distinguished for their ac-
quaintance with the science of biblical criticism. Not only so, but we find
other critics of great name, such as Bleek and Schott, to be in accord-
ance with them; not to mention many others now living in Germany.
It would seem to be a kind of desperate undertaking, therefore, to defend
an opinion against the united voice of so many distinguished critics, dif-
fering widely in theological views, but harmoniously combining in their
critical judgment concerning the Apocalypse; and there are doubtless
some, who will even deem an undertaking of this nature rash or pre-
‘sumptuous. Yet, after an examination successively renewed through
many years, I have never been able to satisfy myself, that what has
been the common belief of the churches in all ages respecting the au-
thorship of the Apocalypse, is not sustained by more and better grounds
than any other opinion. I admit very fully and freely, that there are
some difficulties arising from the style and manner of the Apocalypse,
which lie in the way of attributing the book to John the apostle. It has
been an object with me, to shut neither my eyes nor my ears against
anything of this nature, or against any portion of internal evidence which
might undermine the common opinion of the churches. Whether I have
been the whole round of examination, those well qualified to judge can
decide, when they have perused the sequel of this discussion. J have
come back from the long-continued and often repeated pursuit of evi-
dence in relation to the point before us, with the persuasion, that the ar-
gument from the testimony of the ancient Christian fathers is strongly
on the side of the common opinion ; and that the argument from the

286 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

style and manner of the book, or (in other words) the internal evidence,
is not of sufficient strength to settle the question against the authorship
of the apostle. In fact, although I find some peculiarities of style in the
Apocalypse, which are, at first view, strikingly and almost strangely dis-
erepant from the usual manner of John’s Gospel and Epistles, yet there
are still remaining so many features of resemblance, and, as to some
prominent traits, of striking resemblance, that if the latter do not pre-
ponderate in the scale of critical judgment, they at leastdo very nearly
hold the scales in eguelibrio. Whether I have any just ground for pro-
nouncing such a critical sentence, must be disclosed, and at least accord-
ing to my own persuasion will be disclosed, in the discussion that fol-
lows. I hope at least to furnish the reader with materials for forming
his own judgment, and do not expect or wish him to rely upon mine.
I think it can be satisfactorily shown to a mind wholly unprejudiced and
not preoccupied by some favorite views, that many of the words and
phrases adduced from the Apocalypse, in order to show the discrepancy
between this book and.the other writings of John, are chosen with but
little fairness and discrimination ; that many others, if fully conceded,
do not ‘establish the conclusion which is based upon them; and that
most of the striking points of discrepancy can be naturally accounted for,
by proper views of the peculiar nature of the Apocalypse, and of the pe-
culiar condition of John when he composed it.
I make no appeal to the common views and belief of the Christian
churches, in later ages, in order to sustain myself. I shall not attempt
to decry those who differ from me in opinion as. heretics or neologists 3
nor be eager to seize occasion to express astonishment at their views
and grief at their presumption. This mode of discussion presents
nothing attractive to a sincere and modest inquirer after truth. It would
at least be out of place, on the present occasion. Those who are well
acquainted with the critical writings of such men as De Wette, Bleek,
Ewald, Credner, Schott, Liicke, and Neander, must doubtless See
that they cannot have united in denying the apostolical origin of the
Apocalypse, from any common sympathy in theological views, nor from
any favouritism, on the part of some of them, towards neology. The
real state of the fact is, that there are so many apparent difficulties in
the way of giving credit to the alleged apostolic origin of the Apoca-
lypse, that it may easily be believed by even a fair minded critic, who
should proceed only a moderate length in the examination of the ques-
tion of authorship, that grounds are not wanting to persuade one to
doubt or disbelieve such an origin. Indeed, we know that such is the
state of the case. My own mind, if I may be permitted to speak of
myself, has in the different stages of examination, gone through a pro-
cess of this sort toa certain extent. I have indeed never positively dis-

§ 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE, 287

believed the apostolical origin of the book ; but I have, in certain states
of knowledge and certain stages of inquiry, been compelled to hold my-
self im suspense, and wait for more light. Examinations, often and
even painfully protracted, have generally brought me nearer to. the com-
monly received opinion ; until, at last, I feel compelled to believe, that
“they who be for it, are stronger than they who be. against it.” I do
not pretend to absolute certainty ; for that would be idle in such a case,
and on such a point as the one before us. Yet I am satisfactorily per-
suaded, that the arguments against the Johannean origin of the book,
are not adequate to overthrow it. In saying thus much, I have at least
taken a less confident position than De Wette and others, as exhibited
in the above extracts made from them. If I cannot show, with some
good degree of probability, that they have not sufficient reasons for such
confident assertions, then I will abate even from the present tone of my
own much less confident positions.

To those who feel, that all doubt. in respect to the apostolic origin of
the Apocalypse must be a doubt as to its canonical authority and its
credibility, it may be proper here to say, that apostolical origin is not the
only or exclusive qualification of a canonical New Testament book.
Mark and Luke were not apostles. It would be difficult to make out,
with entire certainty, that the James and Jude, who wrote epistles bear-
ing their name, belong to this category. It is possible, then, that the.
Apocalypse may be a canonical book, and worthy of credit, although
written by some other person than the apostle John. If the presbyter
John, whom Papias testifies to be “a disciple of the Lord,” (in Euseb.
Hist. Ecc. II. 39), were the John named in the Apocalypse (1: 1, 4, 9.
22: 8), it is quite possible that the book might sustain the place which
it oceupies ; although, perhaps, with some degree of abatement in the
minds of some, as to the confidence which they repose.in it. ‘The hon-
our and credit of the book are not wholly compromitted by the ques-
tion respecting its author. And since this is plainly the case, we need
not consider doubts in relation to this subject as being altogether and
purely of a heretical character. I do not say, that doubts expressed as
Oeder, Semler, Corrodi, and some others have expressed them, do not
fairly belong to this category; for many of them are unreasonable and
contemptuous.. But we should call to mind that a Dionysius, a Eusebius,
a Luther, a Schott, a Neander, and a Licke, not to mention others, have
doubted; and against these the accusation of contempt, or of under-
valuing the sacred books in general, could not well be brought.

I make these remarks, not for the sake of showing that it is a matter
of indifference whether a man believes or rejects the apostolic origin of
the Apocalypse. Far from this. But I would fain present the true
nature and importance of the question before us, and not attribute to it

288 +... AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

an importance beyond what intrinsically belongs to it. That the sub-
stantial credit of the Revelation’ is not in reality at stake by reason of
such a question, seems to me plain and evident. It is more a critical,
than a theological question. Yet it is one which is not by any means
destitute of interest. I must confess, and I suppose that many will
sympathize with me here, that the Apocalypse would not in all respects
address itself to my feelings with the same interest as it now does, if I
supposed any other man than he “who leaned on Jesus’ bosom” wrote
it. I know of no John, and no Christian author of the primitive age,
who seems:to me to have been so well adapted to write it, as the affec-
tionate friend, the beloved disciple, the speculative theologian, the
strongly feeling and imaginative individual, who has developed his traits.
in the Gospel and Epistles of John. And this is a good reason for
special interest in a composition from his hand. Yet if the book be
properly placed in the Canon, although composed by another man, its
real authority or credibility is not substantially the less, because John
did not compose it.

We may advance, then, to the examination of the question before us,
without envy and without reproach. It is our main design candidly and
honestly to find out and sift the evidence which is accessible.

This evidence one might divide into two classes, viz., external and

internal. But this is not altogether a convenient division, for it seems to.
exclude the historical testimony of the book itself. A better one, for
our present purpose, would be into: HISTORICAL or DIRECT, and INDI-
RECT. In the direct evidence I mean to comprise all /istorical testi-
mony to the fact, that John the apostle was the author of the Apoca-
lypse, whether this be in the way of direct assertion, or by declarations
which fairly imply the fact. By indirect evidence, I mean all such as
results from the nature of the diction, style, or sentiments of the Apoca-
lypse, and seems to bear testimony, that the author of this book wa
the author of the Gospel and Epistles which bear the name of d
In following out such a division, we are permitted, first, to adduce the de
elarations of the book ttself respecting its author, then the testimony of the
early Ohristian fathers, as belonging to the first class of evidence ; we
shall then come, in order, to examine the style, the diction, and the doc-
trines of the Apocalypse, in relation to the authorship of the book.

ey

I. DrmECT OR HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APOSTLE JOHN WAS
THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.
(1) The writer of the book states, in 1:1, 4, 9 and 22: 8, that his
name is JOHN.
This statement does not appear to me, (as some have saiitsipedypas

&

$17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 289

wear the appearance of special effort to make known himself as the au-
thor, and thus to savour of a consciousness, that the genuineness of his
production might be suspected. ‘Who,’ it has been asked, ‘but a sup-
posititious writer, would take care to name himself in four places?
This savours,’ it is added, ‘of a consciousness that his claims will be
suspected, and of a determination to foreclose all avenues to doubt re-
specting the authorship of the book.’

My impression is different. The first exhibition of the name of
John, is in the general superscription of the book, which merely makes
known the person to whom the revelation was made. This could not
well be avoided, unless the general inscription had been wholly omit-
ted. But where among all the books of prophecy in the Old Tes-
tament, is there any analogy for such an omission? The book of La-
mentations omits all superscription ; but not so the prophecy of the same
author. Always is the statement made to whom the word of the Lord,
as a prophecy, came; and in conformity with this, we should of course
expect to find the Apocalypse. The second case in which John’s name
is introduced, is in the address to the seven churches of Asia. It could
not be avoided here, unless the author designed his work to be anony-
mous, which plainly he did not intend. The third instance (1:9) oc-
curs in connection with his history of the Christophany at Patmos, and
his commission to address the seven churches. Here it is employed in
order to assure his readers, that the revelation was made to himself in
propria persona, not to some other person. ‘He who writes what fol-
lows (he means to say) is the very person who saw and heard, in a
state of spiritual ecstasy, all which he has written down.’ If John were
an apostle, this annunciation would be the more important, because it
would give additional weight to his writings, in the view of those whom
he addressed. The same consideration appears to occasion the final

xhibition of his name, at the close of the book, when his prophecy is
shed, viz. in 22: 8. It has struck me with great force, that the sub-

eription in the Gospel of John, 21: 24, is altogether of the same tenor
as the one before us. Thus in John 21: 24, the writer, after he had
related certain things which Jesus had said respecting himself, goes on
thus to describe himself: Odz0¢ éotw 6 wadytyS 0 waotveaY mEol ToOv-
Tov xob youwas tavte. In Rev. 22: 8, the writer says: nayo ‘Lodvens
6 anova xo Brénwv ravta. ‘That he had been in the act of writing
the book, when this was said, is plain from the sequel: xa: Aéyeu wou*
My opouyiong code Aoyous tHE moopyteiag TOV BiBhiov TovTOV.
The manner and object of both these subscriptions is evidently very
much the same. They differ only so far as the diverse nature of the
Apocalypse So ge a difference; aotvgnr, which is appropriate in

VOL. I. 37

290 én. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

the Gospel, becoming éxovwr xai Biézwyv in the Apocalypse, on account
of its addresses and visions.

If now the Apocalypse was composed by some person in the way of
forgery, would a forger or impostor have left the name of John without
some further designation of his person, so as to make sure for the cre-
dit of his book that he was an apostle? Probably he would not. Had
he designed that his own book should be put to the credit of John, he
would have placed the matter beyond all ordinary question, by the man-
ner of his assurances concerning the author. The point which he knew
would be doubted and called in question, he would have taken care to
fortify as strongly as possible. But this he has not done. John is
there, indeed, but we do not find John the apostle, nor John the beloved
disciple, nor John on whose bosom Jesus leaned.

But it appears from a fragment of Papias, (in Euseb. Ecce. Hist. III.
39), that there was a John of some note in Asia Minor, who was a
moeoBvtegos and a wadytys Kvgiov, and a contemporary in part with
John the Apostle. Dionysius of Alexandria, and after him Eusebius,
and since him not a few others, have thought it not improbable, that
the Apocalpyse might be ascribed to John the presbyter. May not the
JOHN mentioned in the Apocalypse, then, be intended to designate this
individual, and the book itself be no forgery, although not written by
the apostle, but a work from the hand of one who has given his true
name ?

The possibility of this cannot, indeed, be well denied. That such
a man lived in Asia Minor, (where, I have not been able to ascertain
with certainty), partly in the time of John, that he was one of Christ’s
disciples, and perhaps that he was a presbyter in some church of Asia,
seem to be facts that cannot reasonably be questioned, although some
of them cannot be certainly established. Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. III. 39)
has preserved a passage from the book of Papias, entitled Aoyiwr xvgue-
uo é&yynows, which is designed, in the way of introduction, to show
sources from which Papias drew his narratives. It runs thus: ye
mov HOt THxUHOLOVIHLOS Tig TOIs MeEecPUTEooIg ELOL, TODS TOY moEoBu-
Tégory cvexgivor hoyous: zi Andocus, 7 ci Hézgo¢ sizer, 7 ti Dilunmos,
9 Tt Oomcs, n TaxmBos, i) cé ‘Lodrvys, 7 Mardaiog, 7 cig Exegog tov tov
Kueiov wadyror, are Aouotior xuio x osoBvtegos Twarrns, ot
TOV xvolov wadytal, Agyovow ; i.e. ‘When I met with any one who
was a follower of the elders, I inquired after the words of the elders;
what Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or
James, or what John, or Matthew, or [what] any other of the disciples
of the Lord, such as Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the
Lord, say.’ Eusebius reasons from these words, (in the context ut su-
pra), in order to show that Papias was not himself an adz7xoor, a hear-

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 291

er in person, of the apostles; and Irenaeus (cont. Haeres. V. 33. 3, 4)
seems to draw from them a contrary conclusion; and hence great con-
fusion about their meaning has taken place among many subsequent and
even recent writers. But leaving this, for the present, let us simply
advert to the testimony which respects the presbyter or elder John.
Guerike has recently defended the position, that there is but one John
mentioned here ; Beitrage zur Einleit, ete., p. 4:seq. He contends, also,
that there is no subsequent testimony which can be relied on, that there
was a presbyter of the name of John, at Ephesus, in the days of the
apostle John. I cannot assent, however, to his views respecting the
testimony of Papias, whom he regards as having adverted only to one
John, whose name is merely repeated along with that of Aristion, be-
cause, as he thinks, these two were the only persons named with whom
Papias had a personal acquaintance. The most attentive consideration
of this disputed passage in Papias, which I have been able to give it,
has satisfied me in respect to the following particulars; (1) That the
class of persons (apostles) as far as Matthew inclusively, were men who
were dead at the time when Papias wrote. Hence he refers to them
in the Praeter tense, eizey, had savd, and to himself as collecting what
they had said, by the aid of others who had been conversant with them.
(2) He refers to his obtaining the declarations of the presbyter John
and Aristion in the like way, but he speaks of them as then living—
Aéyovow. Eusebius and others speak of this last clause as intimating
Papias’ personal acquaintance with John the presbyter and Aristion ;
but whatever may have been the fact, the grammatical construction of
the passage will admit of no such interpretation. Of this latter opinion
is Rettig also, Stud. und Krit. IV. p. 773. But (8) I cannot reason
from all this as Eusebius does, i. e. I cannot draw from it the conclu-
sion, that Papias means to say here that he had no personal acquaint-
ance with the apostles; for in the context which immediately precedes
, passage before us, the same Papias says: Ov yao roig ta modha
yovow ELOAQ0, womEe ob modhol, adhe toig ¢ HAN On duiddexovow ov
68 toig cag addotolus evrohes powovedoow, hao ois TAS MOOK TOV
nUQLOU TI MOTEL Sedousvas ual am avtyns nagaywourvas ry aAnOelas*
i. e. ‘I took no pleasure in those who speak much, as many do, but in
those who teach the truth; nor in those who tell of strange precepts,
but in those [who tell] of things from the Lord presented to our faith,
and proceeding from truth itself, viz. from Christ the author of truth.
But to whom does all this refer? Plainly to those of whom he had just
been speaking thus: Ovx dxrqow d¢ cor zai Oou mote mage Tor moEcBv-
céowy xaos suaPov nat xahag éumuovevon ovynacarakou rais Egue-
velos, SwaBeBacovpevos nig avtar adnFevay, i.e. ‘I shall not regret
relating to thee, with explanations, whatsoever things I formerly learned

292 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

well from the Elders, and have well remembered, thus confirming the
truth respecting them; Euseb. H. Ecc. WI. 39. How Eusebius, in rea-
soning upon the sequel to this passage, could so entirely oyerlook the pas-
sage itself as he has done, it would be difficult to explain. But nothing
can be clearer, (4) Than that Papias here declares, the whole passage
being taken together, first of all, his own personal inquiries of the elders ;
then, secondly, his inquiries of others who had been conversant with
them. That elders, in this case, means the apostles and their associates,
is clear from the explanation in the sequel, where Papias mentions An-
drew, Peter, etc., as belonging‘to this class. The very manner of the
transition to a description of the second mode of inquiry practised by
him, shows that the writer is proposing another and different mode
from that first described: Ei 5é¢ zov ual augnzoLovdnuws tig toig mgE0-
burgoore e190, ete. This decides the point, (against the opinion of
Eusebius), that Papias was a disciple or hearer of at least some of the
apostles ; and of course that the declaration of Irenaeus (Haer. V. 30.
3, 4), viz. “ Papias belonged to those zoeoBvzegor, qui Joannem discipu-
lum Domini viderunt,” and again, antag Imdrvov piv axovorie, Lo-
Avuaonov Sé ézaigos, is to be fully credited. In fact the very nature of
the case speaks loudly for this view of the matter. Papias was in part
a contemporary with John the apostle: he was the intimate friend of
Polycarp, whom all agree to have been a personal attendant upon John ;
and he lived, and probably was born, in Mierapolis, which was in the
near neighbourhood of Colosse and Laodicea, all of which places were
doubtless within the sphere of John’s apostolic. labours. Then the in-
satiable curiosity of Papias with regard to apostolic traditions, would of
course have led him to resort to John, when at Laodicea, and specially
to make his acquaintance in case he came to Hierapolis, which we can
hardly imagine he failed to do. It is agreed, among the ancients, that
Papias was for a long time bishop of Hierapolis; and it is well known,
that in the early ages of Christianity men were seldom promoted to the
office of a bishop, unless they were advanced in age. (Hence the title
nosoputeoor). Itis probable, moreover, that Papias died a martyr in
A. D. 164, (see Rettig in Stud. und Kzit. IV. p. 766 seq.), and he
might, therefore, have lived some twenty or more years within the first
_ century; as Polycarp did, who became a martyr at eighty-six years of
age. All these considerations serve to show, that Papias was a hearer
of Jobn the apostle; and with this also to show, that his testimony re-
specting another John, whom he calls moscBvtEgos, is not to be readily
set aside. Ido not see how we can avoid the conelusion, that Papias
was knowing either personally or through others, to the existence of
such a person as John the presbyter, in Asia Minor, at the time when
he lived and wrote.

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 293

But conceding this, what was the character and standing of this se-
cond John? II geofvzegog Papias calls him; but is this a name of of-
Jice, or of age? For it may be applied to either. I am inclined, (with
Credner, Einl. p. 697, and Rettig. ut sup. p. 773), to believe that here
it is not a name of office, but merely of age; and that this second John
was called the elder, either in respect to his coming into Asia before
John the apostle, or, it may be, because he was older than some other
John. The order of the words favours this, viz. 0 gecBdzeqos Iacr-
més; whereas, had the name of office heen here meant, Jauvyys 6 mQ80-
Buzego¢g would have been the usual and natural arrangement. This
frees the passage, moreover, from serious difficulties. In the first part
of it, the persons named seem to be ranked as official mgecBvzegor 5
and if zgeoBvzegog in the last clause is a name of office, then John in this
clause is placed under the same category as the others. It seems to me
altogether probable, that such was not the writer’s intention. Both
Aristion and the John in question were simply wadyzat Kuoiov.

It seems to be doubtful, then, whether the John here named is any
more a presbyter, than the Aristion with whom he is associated. It
would appear probable, moreover, that although as a disciple (uadnrns)
of Christ this John was entitled to some distinction, and so Papias made
inquiries of him, yet he could not have been a person whose character
was very conspicuous in the churches, nor one who did much by which
he would be afterwards remembered. Certain it is, that with the pas-
sage from Papias which makes honourable mention of him, and the de-
claration of Eusebius, that Papias in his book frequently appealed to
him as his authority for particular statements, (Hist. Ecc. ILI. 39), we
have nothing else in all antiquity which is any more than vague report
or surmise concerning him. Eusebius (ubi supra) mentions a report,
in his day, that “there had been two Johns in Asia, dvo te é» Eqéow
yeréoou ponuata’ xa sxctegor ‘Imdrrov éxu voy AgyeoOut, i. e. and
that there were two sepulchral monuments in Ephesus, each of which
bears the name of John.” Dionysius of Alexandria (first half of Cent.
III.), in his famous antichiliastic work, neo. Exayyehiov, (Euseb. Ecce.
Hist. VII. 25), after rejecting the notion that John Mark (Acts 13: 18)
was the author of the Apocalypse, says of the second John: “AAdor dé
cwe oiues tov &v Ate yevousroor, émet nat Sv0 paow & Egéow yevéo-
Has pojpata, nat éxazegor ‘Iwavvov Aéyecdus; i. e. ‘1 think [the au-
thor of the Apocalypse] to be another, and one of those [two Johns]
who were in Asia, since, as they say, there are two sepulchral monu-
ments in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John.’ These are
the very words which Eusebius has quoted in the passage above cited,
Eusebius’ authority then, plainly, was Dionysius ; and the authority of
Dionysius was—qaoir, i. e. a vague traditional report. Jerome (near

294 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

A. D. 400) refers to this same report. In his Catal. Seriptt. c. 18, he
speaks of Papias as enumerating two Johns; in c. 9, he speaks of an
alterum sepulchrum being shown at Ephesus, besides that of the apostle
John; which, in the sequel, he qualifies by saying: “Et nonnulli pu-
tant duas memorias ejusdem Johannis evangelistae esse ;” all of which
plainly shows how feeble and indistinct this tradition was. Cosmas In-
dicopleustes (Cent. VI.) in Topog. Christ. VIL. p. 292, adverts to the
report of two monuments in Eusebius ; and this closes the circle of tes-
timony to the second John. How narrow this circle is, appears very
plainly from facts. Justin Martyr, Melito, Theophilus of Antioch,
Apollonius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and
other later Christian fathers, say nothing of the second John. Even
the Alogi, who opposed the Montanists and with them the Apocalypse,
asserted that Cerinthus was the author of this book, and not the second
John. The like did the presbyter Caius, at Rome, about A. D. 200.
How could all this have taken place, had there been any good founda-
tion for the surmise of Dionysius and Eusebius, viz. that the second
John was the author of the Apocalypse? In truth it was mere guessing,
on the part of Dionysius; from whom Eusebius borrowed his conjec-
ture. Dionysius (Euseb. VII. 25) concedes that “the Apocalypse must
have been written by some person whose name was John.” But from
the style and manner of the book, when compared with the Gospel and.
Epistles of John the apostle, he concludes, that it could not have been
written by the latter. Some other John, then, must be found. He finds
one in the report (~aotr), that “there were two monuments in Ephe-
sus, inscribed with the name of John.” This fell in with the strong
bent of his inclination, when he wrote his book zeoi Evayyehiooy against
the Millenarian bishop, Nepos, who leaned upon the Apocalypse, and
who, relying upon its declarations, confidently urged them in his own
favour. To diminish from the weight of this authority, was the evident
object of Dionysius, and so, although with much caution, he decried
the value of the Apocalypse. But let it be noted, that he does not even
attempt to say, that tradition assigned the authorship of the Apocalypse
to the second John. He appeals to tradition only to show, that there
were two Johns at Ephesus; and then he conjectures, that the second
John might have written the book. And this is all which Eusebius has
to say respecting this matter. He plainly had nothing else to relate
concerning it, except what he found in Dionysius. Equally plain is it,
that such a conjecture in regard to the authorship of the Apocalypse
never had any considerable circulation in the primitive ages of Chris-
tianity. It is echoed, or adverted to, from no other quarter. The se-
cond John, if an ne ae (which I do not deny), was an ob-
scure one, in whom succeeding times neither felt nor manifested any

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 295

special interest. The manner in which Jerome speaks of the subject,
(see above), shows very plainly what a mere floating rumour he con-
sidered the whole affair to be. ,

We have now come to a point, from which we may take a more defi-
nite view of our subject. How can we reasonably suppose the second
John to have been the author of the Apocalypse ?

I can scarcely expect contradiction, after all that has recently been
written concerning the Apocalypse, when I aver that no ordinary man
could have composed this book. The rhetorical worth and eminence of
the book are happily no longer subjects of denial or doubt; at least this
is true in respect to the great mass of critics on the sacred writings. A
man deeply versed in the Old Testament prophets, the writer of the
Apocalypse must have been. The truth of this statement shines forth
from every page, and is one of the most prominent features of the whole
work. A man of considerable information in other respects, also, the
author must have been. Witness so many names of the precious stones
so fitly chosen, and many other names of a variety of objects in the
Apocalypse. A Hebrew—yea a Hebrew of the Hebrews—the author
must certainly have been. The whole book is evidently made up of
Hebrew thoughts clothed in Greek costume. Nor is this all. .'The
author must have stood on a lofty preéminence among the churches of
Asia, in order to entitle him to address them in the style which the first
three chapters of the book exhibit. He must have been a preacher and
teacher among them, and most intimately acquainted with their circum-
stances and their condition both spiritual and temporal. He evidently
bore a strong attachment to them, like that of a father to his children.
He claims authority to rebuke and chasten, also to order discipline and
demand reformation. He even insists upon some excommunications.
In a word, all whieh a general and spiritual éwioxomog or émotarys can
be supposed to feel, speak, and do, he considers as belonging to himself
in relation to the churches of Asia.

Viewing the matter in this light, is it not. strange that the second
John should ever have been thought of as the author of the Apocalypse ?
He may indeed have been a Hebrew, and possibly well versed. in the
Hebrew Scriptures. For aught we know, he may have even been a
man of some learning also; but where was his authority in all the Asia-
tic churches?. And what do we know of him, from the testimony of
antiquity, that distinguishes him from the great mass of common men
and common characters, excepting that he was a padyzn¢ Kveiov, and
perhaps one of the seventy disciples; although this last is not very pro-
bable? Could a man that was capable of writing the Apocalypse, and
who felt free to address the leading churches of hither Asia as the au-
thor of the Apocalypse has done, remain in obscurity, and scarcely be

296 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE.

thought of or anywhere mentioned? Things of such a nature are not
wont to take place in such a way. On the very face of the whole mat-
ter, therefore, it is an improbability that the second John wrote the
Apocalypse. One might as well think of attributing Virgil’s Aeneis
to a Codrus, or the Paradise Lost to Sir Richard Blackmore.

Was there any other John, then, who was conspicuous at an early
period in Asia Minor, except John the apostle? We know of none.
Dionysius and Eusebius themselves knew of none; for had they known
anything of such a person, with their feelings and persuasion respecting
the Apocalypse, they would surely have pointed him out. But some-
body must be the author of the book; some person whose name was John
must have written it, for it is no book of an impostor. It must have
been written at the time when John the apostle was in Asia. “ The in-
ternal evidence, as to time, is conclusive on this point. Who wrote
it must have been known to the seven churches. The John who ad-
dressed them could be no fictitious personage. How could his book
_ have been recéived and accredited at all, had such been the fact? John
the apostle, at all events, was on the ground when the book was written ;
and, if it were a forgery, he must have exposed it. Every Christian,
at that time and place, must have known which John was banished to
Patmos, and of course by which John the churches were addressed. To
say the least, moreover, no obscure individual could have had the celeb-
rity, which the author of the book must have had in order to free him
from the charge of presumption and unbecoming obtrusiveness. All
the churches are supposed to know him as it were equally ; all to be
under obligation to obey him. Had there been any other John than
the apostle, in that region, who was in circumstances like these, how is
it possible that we should not have heard something more concerning
him?

The force of these considerations is greatly increased, by a historical
circumstance not yet mentioned. An earlier father than Dionysius of
Alexandria was Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who lived in the latter
part of Cent. II. An epistle of his to Victor bishop of Rome and to the
church there, on the subject of the paschal controversy, is preserved in
Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. V. 24. In defence of his own opinion, Polycrates
appeals to the like sentiment on the part of the leading and distinguished
characters in the church of Asia Minor, viz. to John the apostle, Poly-
carp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, ete. But not a word econ-
cerning the second John. If such a man had been in authority and had
written the Apocalypse, could he have been omitted here? If tradition
even, in early times, had ever attributed this book to him, Dionysius

and Eusebius would s not: ols neglected to tell us so, and Caius
and the Alogi wanla ve ms to Cerinthus as the author of the

$17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 297

Apocalypse, in order to avoid the credit given to the book by the name
of John the apostle.

To all these considerations we may add, that the revelation made to
John, (Rev. 1: 1), imports of course that this John was some very con-
spicuous and distinguished character.. Is any other person than an
apostle probable? I cannot accede, indeed, to the view which Guerike
and others have taken of Rev. 1: 2, as declaring that the John of the
Apocalypse is the author of the Gospel which bears the same name. A
comparison of this passage with Rev. 1: 9. 6: 9. 20: 4, will show that
no sound argument of this nature can be derived from the turn of ex-
pression in Rey. 1: 2, for such a purpose. At most, it merely points out
the John of the Apocalypse as the preacher or teacher of the word of God
and of the Gospel of Christ. What John it was that had borne this
character among the seven churches, must have been well known at
that time. Besides all this, the Gospel was written later than the Apoc-
alypse. Rev..1: 9 merely defines or further designates the person of
the author. That John, the author, was one of the zgoqyzui, is clear
moreover from Rev. 22: 9. Why was anything more than this neces-
sary? To say of himself, that he was John the beloved disciple, or the
disciple who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, or John the apostle, was quite
superfluous, when writing to the seven churches. All this they must
have well known. Nor was John a man who was prone to obtrude on
others such claims, when they were not indispensable to some important
end.

It strikes me, that any other writer of the Apocalypse than the John
of that day, unless he was an impostor, would naturally have described
himself so as to guard against all mistake. In common honesty he was
bound to do this. And when we are asked by any critic with a look of
skepticism: Why did not John, if he were the apostle, say so? we may
well reply: Why did not John the second or presbyter, if indeed he
were the author, say who he was, and leave no room for his readers to
commit a mistake? As things are, all is well. The author of the book
had no suspicion that he would be mistaken for another ; and so he took
no pains to guard against this. Z’he~John of Asia Minor was the only
man of that day and that region, who was honestly entitled to write in
this manner.

Liicke, who generally writes in a spirit of moderation and candour,
has, as we have seen above, expressed a most unqualified negative, up-
on the question of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. The same
author, however, has admitted fully, that no valid claims can be made
out for the second John at Ephesus. He gives up even all pretences to
conjecture who the author was. His general oe is (p. 390 seq.),
that John the apostle may have ned the visions related in the Apoca-

VOL. I. 38

298 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

lypse; that he probably spoke of them in the circle of the Asiatic
churches; that some gifted man there heard him, and undertook to
write them down; that in so doing he ‘has mingled his own conceptions
with those of John; that the apostle, when he saw the writing, (for he
allows that he probably must have seen it), finding that it did not sub-
stantially disagree with his own doctrinal views, or with those of Paul,
suffered it to circulate without remarks, at least without opposition ;\ and
that all this might happen, because, as he avers, the primitive Christians
were much more concerned about the matter of a writing, viz. whether
it-was truly Christian or not, than they were respecting the author of it.
He acknowledges with much eandour, that he has no data on which to
build all this, but he thinks that some such supposition is necessary, in
order to reconcile the apparent difficulties that exist as to the composi~
tion of the book in question.
But with all due respect for the. opinion of so learned and candid a
writer, I would ask, whether some of the leading assumptions, in this
case, are not opposed to the actual state of things in the early Christian
church? In what way, for example, is it to be proved, that the early
church did not much concern itself about the awthors of works on reli-
gious topics? How comes it, that amid the flood of very early writings,
most of which have perished, only the few New Testament books were
selected and fixed upon as genuine? How many of all the New Tes-
tament books have other than an apostle for their author? Only Mark
and Luke’s compositions. But why were these admitted to a place in
the Canon? Is not antiquity agreed in the tradition, that the Gospel of
Mark was overseen or superintended by Peter, and that of Luke by
Paul? As to the Epistles of James and Jude, they were doubtless re-
garded, by the most of Christians, as the productions of apostolic men.
Why was such a line as this drawn, in regard to books on religious top-
ics, unless the churches were solicitous about the authors, as well as the
matter of them? The history of the New Testament canon speaks
loudly against such an assumption as that of Liicke. And if he ean
point out this Christian father or that, (as he may), who enlarged his
own canon beyond our present .one, yet it was merely an individual
opinion rather than a general one, as the very boundaries or extent of
the New Testament. canon shows. Matter of fact, therefore, stands de-
cidedly against Liicke’s assumption,

But if this assumption falls, it brings down his whole building along
with it. How could John be indifferent to the setting of his own name
to a composition which did not belong to him? Must not a thousand
questions have been asked by others of him, in relation to such an ex-
traordinary book ? if he .: them truly, (can we suppose
he did not?) then th osture, e fiction (if this is a better word),

™

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THE BOOK. 299

must have been evident to all. Could the very churches under his own
personal care, have been indifferent to the use of his name, in such a
case? Specially could those churches have acquiesced, who are severe-
ly rebuked in the Apocalypse? Then, moreover, what honest and de-
cent man would have ventured upon such a bold experiment under the
very eye of the apostle himself? What could he expect for his book
which made pretences so lofty, when all of them could be exposed by a
single word from John? Why, if he reduced to writing John’s repre-
sentations of his visions at Patmos—why did he not submit the compo-
sition to John, and tell his readers that he had done so? A most ad-
venturous task he undertook, full surely, viz. to ‘mix the apostle’s con-
ceptions with his own,’ in relation to such subjects as are here treated
of. But no—this is quite improbable, if-not indeed altogether impos-
sible. If such had been the. case, the style of the composition must
have: betrayed the hand of the fictitious writer. It is out of question,
that any writer should so commingle .his own with that of another, in
such a book of high wrought poetry as the Apocalypse, and yet not be-
tray any diversity in plan or style... Yet in all the Bible there is not a
book that is more uniform in style,,or more compacted and dove-tailed
together than the Apocalypse. I doubt whether there is one, of the same
length, which does not. exhibit more diversity of style than this book.
Such are its idiomatic peculiarities, that even the disjecta membra bear
the stamp of the main body.- If there ever was a book that had but
one author, the Apocalypse has an irresistible claim to be considered as
such a. book. :

Then how comes it, that neither a Dionysius, nor a Caius, nor a Euse-
bius, was able to find out anything respecting such a fiction? Would not
the Alogi, too, have hunted it out? How comes it that the great mass
of, ancient Christian fathers speak and think of John the apostle only
as the author of the Apocalypse, (we shall see this to be the fact), and
how can it be, that no report of a composition of the book like that sup-

, posed by Liicke, or by Dionysius, ever had any currency in ancient
times? In short, in whatever direction we turn, objections start up as
thick and as menacing, as the armed men from the teeth which were
sown by Cadmus... Sooner would I embrace the hypothesis, that either
John Mark, or John the presbyter, was the author, than believe such a
fiction as Liicke proposes. How could all this take place, under the
very eye of the apostle John, and among the Christians specially com-
mitted to his care?

One word on the idea of an ebdoclera having composed the book ;
for more than a word is not needed. . If there be any book in all the
Scriptures, which bears unequiv arks of a most serious and ear-
nest state of mind, the Aosta be be regarded as such a book,

300 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

by every impartial and feeling reader. A deeper tone of earnestness
never pervaded any writing. What could an ¢mpostor have in view,
by composing such a book? How could he expect the Asiatic Christians
to receive it? How could he suppose, that John would not at once
overthrow its credit? Was it fame that the impostor courted? How
could he obtain it, where detection of his imposture was certain? Was
it personal honour or gain that he sought for? . How could he obtain
either, so long as he kept himself concealed and was unknown? In
fact, the allegation of imposture may be made, for it has been, by heated
and indiscreet disputants; but it is not deserving of any special notice.
The spirit—the all pervading Christian spirit of the Apocalypse, is a
sufficient answer to any allegation of this kind that can be made. |

Finally, it lies upon the face of this whole matter, that whoever in
fact wrote the book, he meant to attribute it to the apostle John. Dio-
nysius and Eusebius excepted, the ancients thought and spoke of ne
other John, in relation to the Apocalypse.. Even Dionysius, however,
with all his feeling of opposition to Chiliasm, which was mainly ground-
ed by its advocates on the Apocalypse, did not venture even to suggest,
that tradition had ascribed the work to John the presbyter. It is merely
a conjecture of his own, built on the’ testimony of Papias respecting a
second John at Ephesus. Eusebius, as we have seen, merely repeats
his conjecture ; and this, too, without even putting so much stress upon
it as Dionysius does. The question, then, as it respects the assertions
of the Apocalypse itself concerning John as its author, is reduced to nar-
row limits. It is simply this: Is any other John, except the apostle,
likely to have written and published such a book as the Apocalypse, at
the time and place in which it was published, and under the cireum-
stances that must have attended the publication? And the answer to
this question may well be submitted to the judement of every impartial
critic, who is well informed in matters of Christian antiquity. There
is, indeed, no work of antiquity about which doubts may not be raised
and suggested. The Iliad, the Eneid, and nearly all the classical writ-
ings of Greece and Rome, have been assailed by doubts; and many of
these, moreover, are not lacking as to zeal or ingenuity. But these
writings still hold their place. If the Apocalypse has not a similar
right to claim John as its author, it is not because its own declarations or
external testimony are wanting.

(2) Testimony of Polycarp.

That Polycarp was in part contemporary with the apostle John, and
that he was constituted a bishop of Smyrna by him or by some of the
apostles, is generally conceded, an is directly testified by Irenaeus, a
disciple of his, in his book Contra Haer. III. 4. See also the same in

a

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP. 301

Euseb. IV. 14. The celebrity of his character needs. no illustration
here. The time of his martyrdom and death is not certain. The
Chronicon Paschale names 163; Eusebius 167, Usher 169, and Pear-
son 147. The last seems in some respects to be the more probable date,
inasmuch as eighty-six (the age at which he suffered martyrdom), would
make him to be only thirty-two years in A. D. 98, when John probably
died; while the other dates would make him less than twenty. If he
was made bishop by John, it is hardly probable that he could have been
much younger than thirty-two.

We have only one relic of ‘his writings still extant, viz. his epistle to
the Philippians. Besides this, we have (in Euseb. IV. 15) an epistle
of the church at Smyrna to the churches in Pontus, giving a copious
narration of the martyrdom of Polycarp. In these there is no allusion
to the Apocalypse. But nothing for or against the Apocalypse as a
work of John, or as existing at all, can be drawn from this circumstance.
All that is necessary to be said, is, that Polycarp, or his friends, had no
occasion to speak of the Apocalypse, in their communications still ex-
tant. Is it any good argument against the existence of this or that Old
Testament book and its canonical authority, that Paul or Peter, James
or John, has not quoted it in their epistles ?

Meanwhile many of the friends of the apostolic origin of the Apoca-
lypse have urged the indirect testimony of Polycarp to such an origin,
in the following manner: ‘As Polycarp was the personal friend and
attendant of John, so was Irenaeus of Polycarp. Now Irenaeus, every
where and on all occasions, testifies his full belief in the apostolic origin
of the Apocalypse. Could he have done so, if Polycarp had not be- |
lieved the same? And must not Polycarp have certainly known what
was the fact, in regard to the authorship of the Apocalypse ?’

All this, to say the least, looks probable and natural. One can in-
deed scarcely conceive of a persuasion, so deep and radical as that of
Irenaeus certainly was, and yet suppose that Polycarp doubted the apos-
tolic origin of the Apocalypse. In his remarks on Rev. 13: 18 (the
number of the beast), Irenaeus speaks of the testimony to the reading
ys as being delivered by éxetvov tov xa’ ow tov ‘Locrryy sagox0-
tov, Lib. V..30. 1. Is not Polycarp included among these? And if
not, does not the testimony necessarily imply, that some of the personal
acquaintances of John had ascertained from jim, what the reading in
question was, and had told Irenaeus? And why from him? Plainly,
as the direct implication is, because he, being the author of the book,
could speak with certainty. There is no other probable ground for
making such an appeal. And it is difficult to resist the impression from
all this, that Polycarp believed a the apostolic origin of the
Apocalypse ; although this does not, and cannot, amount to a certainty.

302. §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

Yet whoever reads the extract from Irenaeus’ epistle to Florinus,- (in
Euseb. V. 20), will be so deeply impressed with the enthusiastic rever-
ence of Irenaeus for Polycarp, that he can scarcely suppose the latter
to have disbelieved the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, while the
former so often and so strongly asserts it. To conclude with Lucke,
that because Irenaeus has erred in regard to the time in which the
Apocalypse was written, he might also err as to the author of the
book, seems not to be satisfactory. The possibility, indeed, who will
deny? But still, the two cases are far from being alike. Two perse-
cutions of Christians took place during the life of John. Under both
banishment took place. The persecutions happened a century, or more
before Irenaeus wrote his book. It is quite probable, that, bemg a
youth (zaig¢ ov), he did not. make special inquiry respecting the
time, when the book was written. The persecution of Domitian he was
best acquainted with. The internal evidence of the book against a late
composition, he had not studied or learned to appreciate. John, it may
be and is ever probable, suffereda second banishment. But be this as
it may, it seems quite probable, that Irenaeus made out his opinion re-
specting the date of the Apocalypse, from what is contained in Rev. 1:
9, and not from testimony. If indeed he made out his opinion about
the author in the same way, this would only serve to show what impres-
sion the declaration of the Apocalypse concerning John had made on
the churches. The question of authorship, on which, as the ancients
viewed the subject, was suspended the credit of the book, is in its very
nature different from the question respecting time. In circumstances
like these, the natural impression on the whole is, that Polycarp’s be-
lief was like that of Irenaeus, in respect’ to. the Apocalypse. Is it -pro-
bable that the latter would venture, on such a point, to differ from the
former? Is it probable that he did not know the opinion of the former,
in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse ?

(3) Testimony of Papias.

On this subject it is unnecessary for me to dwell very long. I have
already examined the question, whether Papias was probably a hearer
of John, or of any of the apostles. Irenaeus direttly asserts that he
was, in Haeres. V. 83; Eusebius, in II. 39 reasons against it, as we
have seen (p. 290 seq. above), from the words of Papias himself. Butis
it not evident, that Eusebius’ exegesis is faulty? He had strong preju-
dices against Papias as a Millenarian, and looked upon him as an en-
thusiast. Be it that he was right in his opinion, so far as this point was
concerned, this does not establish the correctness of his exegesis. And
other sources of knowledge, which would show that Papias was not a
hearer of John, he does not pretend to have. With Irenaeus the case

%

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS. 308

seems to be different. That Papias was the intimate friend (ézaigos)
of Polycarp, is asserted by Irenaeus in V. 33, and admitted by Eusebius
in Kee. Hist. HI. 39. Is it probable, then, that Irenaeus, the enthusi-
astic admirer of Polycarp, was mistaken on a point so plain and obvious
as this, viz., whether Papias, the intimate friend of Polycarp, was ac-
quainted with John, with whom, it is admitted, Polycarp himself was
familiar? T cannot well conceive, that Irenaeus’ testimony in this case
does not outweigh the mere constructive argument which Eusebius has
drawn from the text of a passage in Papias. Jerome, who was no Mil-
Ienarian, does not reason in this way. Although in‘his Catalogus
(s. v. Papias), he translates the very passage of Papias on which Euse-
bius builds his argument, still he says: “ Papias, Johannis auditor, Hie-
ropolitanus in Asia episcopus.” He repeats this in his Ep. ad Theodo-
ram, (IV. p. 581), where he says: “Refert Irenaeus... et Papiae
auditoris evangelistae Johannis discipulus, ete.” That Irenaeus was a
disciple of Papias, and the latter a hearer of John, is here asserted by
Jerome. Whence he obtained it, i. e. whether by report or inference
from written testimonies, I know not. Ido not find this circumstance
elsewhere mentioned; but, considering the intimacy between Polycarp
and Papias, the assertion of Jerome seems quite probable.

_ Thus much for the personal relations of Papias. Now as to his ¢es-
timony. We have already seen, that the passage in Euseb. II. 39 does
itself contain an intimation, that Papias was a personal inquirer of the
apostles, p. 291 seq. above.. We have extracts from the Aoyiay xvoraxory
’ &&jynoig of this writer, in Eusebius, in Irenaeus, in Jerome, and in the
Commentary of Andreas bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (Cent. V.) ;
so that there can be no doubt of Papias’ work being well known an-
ciently, and long circulated. But none of these extracts speak directly
to the point of John’s authorship. Yet it is most abundantly evident,
that Papias was a warm defender, if not the father, of the Millenarian
doctrine of the early ages. On what did he build this? Whence did
such views originate? Semler, Corrodi, and others, have said, that it
originated from earlier Rabbinic speculation and phantasies still circu-
lating among the converted Jews; and Corrodi has laboured with great
skill and ingenuity. to prove this. But what is the evidence? I do not
find anything more than surmises, which are built upon productions sub-
sequent to. the origin of the Apocalypse. Irenaeus, in the very passage
which he cites from Papias respecting the millennial period (V. 33),
speaks of him as “having seen John the disciple of the Lord.” How
can we understand him as meaning to imply less, than that Papias
claimed the sanction of John for his view of the Millennium? 1 do not
say that he has, or makes, any claim to the personal sanction of John
in conversation, but to the oes John as exhibited in the Apoc-
alypse.

Kp,

304 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

If now it can be shown, that Papias was acquainted with the Apoca-
lypse, and regarded it as a divine book, it would seem sufficiently pro-
bable, that he drew his Chiliasm from that book. The commentaries
of Andreas, and of his successor Arethas, make this sufficiently sure ;
as we shall see in the sequel. But in the mean time, it seems to me
altogether probable, that Eusebius himself has given the same opinion.
In Ece. Hist. III. 39, he says: “Even this same writer [Papias] sets
forth things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, viz. certain
strange parables [i. e. such as are not contained in the Gospels] of the
Saviour, and doctrines of his, and certain other fabulous things. Among
these he also declares, that there will be a certain Chiliad of years after
the resurrection from the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be es-
tablished visibly [owpacixes, bodily, i. e. materially] on this earth. “4
HOLL NYOVMCl, TAS dmogtolixts mrerguedes crevor Sujyjoers, vmohupei, ta
éy vaodeiywaou moos ave puorinns ignpen ey GUPEDQUHOT OL, =po-
dou yea TOL minds OY TOY VODY, WS cP &% THY AUTOV hoywR TEexunOdUE-
vow eimeiv, paiverat, i. e. which [Chiliad and earthly kingdom] I sup-
pose he admitted, because he misunderstood the apostolic Sijyyoets, not
perceiving that the things declared in the documents [copies of the
Scriptures] were mystically spoken by them [by the apostles]. For he
appears to have been a man of very moderate capacity, as.one might
affirm from the testimony of his own words.” Eusebius then adds+
“Still he appears to have been the cause of the like opinion among most
ecclesiastics, who allege the great antiquity of the man.” Now in this
passage, Eusebius distinguishes two sources of Papias’ opinions, the one
is unwritten tradition, and the other is apostolical dmpynjoste. From this
latter source comes Papias’ view of the Millennium. But how? By
interpreting literally what is said uvotixws. Where else but in the
Apocalypse did Papias find duyyoee of this nature, limiting the period
to a Chiliad of years? Plainly nowhere. But observe that Eusebius
says, at the same time, that the dwyjoes from which Papias drew his
Millennial views, were ezootolixas. If so, then Papias looked upon
the Apocalypse as the work of John the apostle ; for it is not even pre-
tended that any other apostle was ever thought of by the ancients as the
author of the Apocalypse.

So far as it respects our present view of Papias’s testimony, it mat-
ters not whether he had been a hearer of John or not. I should prefer
_,to believe, if I could make it consistent with what Irenaeus says, that
he was not; for how could he get such views of the Millennium as he
has developed, from intercourse with the apostle himself? But that
Eusebius himself means to concede, that he drew them from writings
regarded by Papias as apostolical, although he did this by a wrong exe-
gesis, seems to lie upon the face of the above passage. Did not Papias,
then, regard the Apocalypse as an apostolical book ?

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS. 305

But he was opodea cuizeds coy vovv. True, such was the judgment
of Eusebius; but in what respect? Only as it regarded the interpreta-
tion of the figurative language of prophecy, Eusebius himself being
judge. In III. 36 he says: “Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, avo 7a
mevtoe Orv paehiora hoyitarng, xo tHE yous siOjuoyv; i. e. a man in
all respects most learned [or eloquent], and skilled in the Scriptures.”
Valesius, indeed, in a note on this passage, says that several Mss. of
Eusebius omit this latter clause. But this savours of emendation. The
clause looks like a contradiction of what is said afterwards in III. 39,
as quoted above; and Papias was in no good odour with the Antimil-
lenarians. Yet in reality there is no contradiction, as viewed by Euse-
bius. He denies to Papias the talent requisite to interpret the mystical
prophecies in an appropriate manner, because he interprets them lite-
rally or comatixog. And with good reason. Yet he might be a man
of many other attainments, and most probably was. How else can the
influence which Eusebius himself ascribes to him be well accounted for ?

‘Thus much for Eusebius’s view of Papias and his opinions. Ata
‘later period we find testimony still more explicit. The book of Papias
survived the 5th century, and probably a considerably longer period.
Near the close of this century, however, Andreas, bishop of Caesarea,
wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which is still extant. In the
Preface to this he says: Iegi pévzou tov Seomvevorov ths BiBAov megut-
Tov pyndvew cov Loyor yyovmEoa, TOY waxaolwr, oenyooiov pyut tov
Seohoyov, xa Kupidiov, moocert dé xat tov agyosoréoay, Iunniov, ‘Ton-
vaiov, MeGodiov xai Inmodizov ravry moocpaervgovytay tO akvomoTOP
i. e. ‘in regard now to the inspiration of the book, we think it superflu-
ous to extend our discourse, inasmuch as the blessed, Gregory the deo-
Aoyog I mean, and Cyril, and moreover the more ancient [writers], Pa-
pias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear testimony to the credi-
bility of this [book]. In nearly the same words throughout, does Are-
thas, the successor of Andreas, (fl. in the early part of Cent. VI), bear
the like testimony. It is evident that both commentators possessed and
consulted the Aopicr xvoraxar ‘E&nyjosig of Papias.

The credibility of these witnesses no one will pretend to impeach.
Particularly as it respects Papias; it is evident that they had no mulle-
narian sympathy with him, and were not led by partiality in this re-
spect to appeal to him; for both of them (Comm. on Rev. xx.) reject
all carnal views of the Millennium. That Andreas actually made use
of the work of Papias, is clear from the fact, that he appeals to Papias
by name, and cites two distinct passages from him, in his Commentary
on Rey. 12: 7. It does not follow, that he cites from a Commentary of
Papias on the Apocalypse; for, although such a work has been ascribed
to him by some; yet neither Eusebius, nor any of the ancient writers

VOL. I. 39

306 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

appeal to any such production of Papias. The passages cited concern
merely the agency of angels, and may well have been in the book of
Papias already named.

What then is it to which Papias bears witness, in the view of An-
dreas and Arethas? It is the Sedzvevoror of the Apocalypse, i..e. its
inspiration. But in the view of these commentators throughout, who
has any claim to be the author of an inspired book? Plainly none but
apostles, and those who wrote under their eye, and as it were by their
dictation. Liicke apparently concedes this, p. 270; and yet afterwards
he seems to take it back, p. 271. At least, he thinks it quite possible,
that Papias, although he knew the book was not of apostolic origin,
might still have regarded it as inspired. But if Papias’s account of
himself, given on p. 290 seq. above, is correct, it would seem very plain,
that he cared little for any traditions or dupyjoeg which did not come
from the apostles. Even Aristion and the presbyter John are appealed
to only as reporters of apostolic sayings; at least, the proper exegesi
of Papias so decides the matter. This makes against the view of Liicke.
Tt looks much as if Papias did not credit even dinyijceg or magadooes,
unless he could trace them to an apostolic origin. Deceived he might
have been, and doubtless was, as to the origin of some of his é&yyjoes 3
but the principle of reception remained steadfast. How can it be said,
then, with any good degree of probability, that Papias might easily ad--
mit the inspiration of the Apocalypse, although he did not hold the
book to be apostolic? If he insisted on such authority even for his
#Snynoeis, would he be satisfied with less for a book of divine authority ?
Will Licke tell us how—with such a facile faith as he ascribes to Pa-
pias and the age in which he lived—how it came about that the New
Testament should be made up, at last, only of apostolic writings—apos-
tolic in the immediate and proper sense, or in an equivalent one? This
fact makes against his view of Papias’ facile faith. Mistaken Papias
might be, in a matter of criticism and taste; but if he was—as Irenaeus
and Jerome assert, and as the time and circumstances in which he lived
go to show—a hearer of John and an intimate friend of Polycarp, (yea,
and a teacher of Irenaeus also), how could he well mistake about a point
of so deep interest to him as a Millenarian, viz. Who wrote the Apoca-
lypse? The supposition seems not to be entitled to credit, when all
these circumstances are fully weighed.

‘ But,’ it is alleged, ‘ Andreas was mistaken as to the belief of Gre=
gory [of Nazianzen] and Cyril [of Alexandria] in the apostolic origin
of the Apocalypse. Why may he not have been mistaken, also, in his
opinion respecting Papias? The possibility of this, no one will deny ;
the probability is another question. But that he was mistaken as to
Cyril, is far from being correct; and that Gregory Nazianzen rejected

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 307

the Apocalypse, is a proposition which cannot well be established, as we
shall see in due time. As to Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus,
there can be no doubt that Andreas is in the right. The views which
he ascribes to Papias, then, stand fairly tedaaeaatek

‘ But how could Eusebius have passed over such an acknowledgment,
on the part of Papias, of the authority of the Apocalypse, when he so
carefully cites his testimony, and that of others, to the other books of
the New Testament? Eusebius must surely have read him, in order to
obtain his testimony in general; and why has he failed to report it on
this point ?”

That Eusebius read the work of Papias, I am not about to deny. But
Eusebius had a strong dislike of everything that pertained to Chiliasm,
and a strong distaste for Papias’ visionary turn of mind. That he read
him with a less scrutinizing eye, in such passages as pertained to Chili-
asm, it is not unnatural to suppose, because of his distaste for them.
At all events, we may ask questions equally difficult to be answered on
the other side, viz., How could Jrenaeus have so mistaken the character of
Papias, and his relation to Polyearp and to John? How could Jerome
have so mistaken the same? How could Andreas and Arethas, who
appeal to Papias, and evidently had his work in their hands, have so
mistaken his views? It is much easier to suppose, that Eusebius com-
mitted some oversight in this matter, than it is to dispose of all this tes-
timony, and of all the probabilities that arise from the time, place, and
circumstances, in which Papias lived.

On the whole, if certainty is not attained here, reasonable probabili-
ty, and that in no small degree, seems to be the result of our investiga-
tion. I must think that the staunch Millenarian, Papias, drew his
views from a defective interpretation of the Apocalypse, and that in re-
sorting to it for those views, he regarded it as the work of John, and as
being of apostolical authority. Nor can I think, that Eusebius and the
other writers named above contradict each other, as to testimony about
matters of fact. The former made up his opinion merely from his in-
terpretation of a passage in Papias, and, as we have reason to believe,
made it up erroneously ; the latter either drew from other sources, or
else took a different and more correct view of the meaning of Papias.
In this case, their exegesis would be discrepant from that of Eusebius ;
but the testimony of the two parties as to facts, does not stand in mutual
opposition.

(4) Testimony of Justin Martyr.

This father was born at Neapolis or Sichem in Samaria; was of
Greek origin; was in part contemporary with Polycarp and Papias,
and flourished as a writer about 140—160. He was first a heathen phi-

308 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

losopher; and after his conversion to Christianity, about 132, he tra-
velled in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Ephesus, among other places,
was his abode for some time. Endowed with a bold and inquiring mind,
it could scarcely be supposed, that he would not make os there
respecting the life and works of the apostle John. Eusebius avers, that
the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew was held at Ephesus; by which he
seems to suppose, that the work of Justin, so entitled, is only a narrative
of what actually took place. The authenticity of this work was some
time since called in question, by the effervescence of skeptical criticism.
But Muenscher’s defence of it has set the question at rest. If it had not,
the recent discussion of Semisch must do so. The work of Justin was
written about 140; and therefore during the life of Polycarp, Papias,
and Irenaeus.

Justin is labouring (c. 80, 81) to establish the doctrine of Chiliasm ;
to which he seems to have been areal convert. After citing various
passages in confirmation of it from the Jewish Scriptures, he appeals to”
the testimony of New Testament Scriptures in the following words :
“ Kot érewdy nol mag juir aryo tis, © drouce Tocsrys, sic tar amo6-
toAwv tod Xororod, &v Anoxadvwe yerousry eeur@, yu én momo:
Teqovoudiu tovg rh juetéom Xora miotevourtes mooegytevos, xat
peta Tadte THY nadoMany nol (cureddrtt Pavel) aicoriay opodvuaddor
cn narrow avrdotacw yernoectat xat xoicw* i. e. Moreover, since
even among us a certain man, John by name, one of the apostles of
Christ, in the Revelation made to him, prophesied that those who be-
lieve in our Messiah should spend a thousand years in Jerusalem, and
after this (to speak briefly) that there should be a general and perpetual
resurrection and judgment of all at the same time.” » That Justin, how-
ever, did not regard this Chiliad as one of mere worldly pleasure, is
clear from the sequel, in which he goes on to show, that the declaration
of Christ, (Luke 20: 35, 36), viz., ‘ In the resurrection, they shall nei-
ther marry nor be given in marriage, but be like the angels,’ confirms
the account in the Apocalypse.

That John the apostle wrote the Apocalypse, and that this is a book
of divine authority or inspired, lies upon the very face of this declara-
tion too obviously to need any comment.

That those who impugn the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, should
endeavour to do away the force of such a pointed and seemingly irre-
sistible testimony as this, was to be expected. Accordingly, from the
time of Abauzit downwards, there have not been wanting men, who
remind us of the enthusiam and credulity of Justin—of his belief in fa-
bles, in the wonderful rise of the Septuagint version, and the like;
moreover, of his spiritualizing exegesis, etc. To all this, however, there
is one plain and simple answer: A man may be an erroneous interpret-

§17. TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 309

er of the words of Seri , or eredulous as to alleged wonders, while
his testimony to a simple foct, which has nothing of the wonderful in it,
may be very upright and worthy of all credit. That John the apostle,
and not other man, wrote the book of Revelation, has nothing of
the wond in it. It would be much more wonderful, if any other
man of that day and in Asia Minor wrote it; for there are things in it,
which would seem strange if attributed to any other man than such an
one as the apostle. All such objections, then, on the part of Abauzit,
Oeder, Semler, and their followers, we may dismiss, without an effort
to refute them.

Attempts of a different nature, less disingenuous, but in my appre-
hension not more successful, have recently been made in order to re-
but the testimony of Justin. Rettig has denied the genuineness of the
cause, cig trav dnoctolov tov Xpistov ; Ueber die Zeugniss fir die
Agechtheit, ete. Leip. 1829. On what ground? No Mss. omit it.
ie was in Justin, when Eusebius wrote his Ecc. History. In

. 18 Eusebius says, in so many words: “He [Justin] mentions the
Apocalypse of John, and says expressly (cages), that it belongs to the

” Eusebius then goes on to show in what high credit Justin’s
work among the early Christians. That the phrase in question
was ever wanting in Justin, there is not the slightest evidence. Rettig
says, indeed, that the strangeness of the phraseology renders it altogeth-
er suspicious. But the force of this remark I do not feel. . Justin is
speaki a Jew; to one unacquainted, as it would seem, with the
books of Christians; else why should he detail to him the whole com-
pass, as it were, of the evangelical history? Justin had been appeal-
ing to estament passages. He now makes the transition to a
part of the New Testament. In so doing he says: “A certain man
among us [Christians], John by name, one of the apostles of Christ,
prophesied, ete.” Justin means to say, that the prophecy now to be
cited came from an authentic source, and therefore he says: One of the
apostles of Christ. Why is this any more strange than the clause:
“ There was a man sent from God, John by name, ete.” in John 1: 5?
In speaking to Trypho of Peter, Justin (c. 108) says: “He [Christ]
named one of his disciples Peter, who was formerly called Simon.” Is
not this of the same tenor with the other passages? In fact, all is so
natural here, that not to suppose some such mode of address would be
strange. Accordingly Rettig has found few, if any, who sympathize
with him in this matter. Schott, Liicke, Credner, all decide against
him.

But Licke comes to a conclusion respecting Justin’s testimony,
which would seem to deprive it mainly of any value. ‘Justin,’ he says,
< was not a disciple of the apostle, or of apostolical men like Polycarp

,

310 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

and others. _We do not know, (he further says), that he made inquiry
of any of them, therefore, in respect to the authorship of the Apoca-
lypse ; and it does not follow, because he was in Ephesus, that he there
made any investigations respecting this matter. He might have drawn
his inferences about authorship, then, from the book itself, and so his
testimony would merely depend on his exegetical conclusions, and
therefore could not be decisive.’

One could hardly expect this strain of reasoning from such a writer
as Liicke. Elsewhere, and in regard to other books, the testimony of
the fathers respecting them rests on two grounds ; (1) Direct quotation
of them as sacred books. (2) Allegations that they were written by
this or that individual. Sometimes tradition is appealed to in these
cases, and sometimes it is not. The very nature of the ease decides,
that it must always be implied; for on what else can the opinion of
writers after about A. D. 160 rest, except on such a basis? Now in the
case before us, Justin unites for substance both of these modes of appeal.
He cites as authoritative the matter of a passage in the Apocalypse ;
and he states the fact, that the Revelation was made to John. the
apostle, and that he uttered it, zgoepyzevoe. And is it rational to sup-
pose, that such an inquiring and enthusiastic mind as Justin’s, while he
was at Ephesus, would have remained idle and indifferent to the ques-
tion: Who wrote the Apocalypse? Above all, since Justin was a
Chiliast, would he have remained indifferent to the inquiry: Whether
the Apocalypse, in his view the principal support of -Chiliasm, was a
book on which reliance might be placed? His Chiliasm would of itself
have given him a more than usual interest:in this question. And at Ephe-
sus, and not long after John’s death too, when many who had been per=-
sonally acquainted with him, must have been still living, he had all pos-
sible opportunity for inquiry of the most direct and decisive nature. Is
there any ground for such a turn as Liicke gives to this matter? If
there is, then all the testimony of antiquity can be rendered suspicious,
or be virtually annulled. On every ground, whether that of intelli-
gence, of thes spirit of inquiry, of credibility as to matters within “his
reach, and of opportunity in the case before us, Justin stands fast as an
unimpeachable and credible witness.

One singular circumstance in respect to Justin should be noticed here,
before we proceed to other testimony. It has been supposed by many,
that he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse. ‘This is founded on a
strange clause, which appears in Jerome’s Catalogus, (c. 9): “In the
14th year of Domitian, who, after Nero, carried on the second persecu-
tion, John, being banished to the isle of Patmos, wrote the Apocalypse ;
quam interpretantur Justinus Martyr et Irenaeus.” The same Jerome,
in his Chronicon says: Quam Irenaeus interpretatur. But in his Cat-

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF MELITO. 311

alogus, under the titles Justin and Jrenaeus, he makes mention of no
such work as executed by either of these fathers. None was known to
the ancients; at least, no mention is made of any such. The manu-
scripts give us no aid in getting rid of the clause in question ; and many
conjectures have been made in respect to its meaning. I cannot help
believing, with Liicke, that the original Greek in Eusebius’ Chronicon,
from which Jerome drew in writing his own Chronicon, affords an ade-
quate solution of the matter. Eusebius is speaking of John’s visions
being seen at Patmos; and he adds: wo dyloi Eignvaios, as Irenaeus
shows or testifies. In some moment of haste or oversight, as it would
seem, Jerome rendered dyAot by interpretatur. This done, the quam
was adopted of course, instead of ut = the w¢ of Eusebius. Sophronius,
the Greek interpreter of J erome, (see i in edit. Fabr.), has translated Je-
rome’s interpretatur by wexéqouce, i. e. metaphrased. What this means
here, it would be difficult to say. It is evident that no investigation of
the > matter itself was made, either by Jerome or Sophronius. The error
once committed in the Chronicon, is transferred to the Catalogus, where
Justin, as well as Irenaeus, is said to be an interpreter of the Apoca-
lypse. It is a pity, that so many theories about Justin’s Commentary
on the Apocalypse should have been made from such materials. But
all this has no immediate relation to the testimony of Justin.

That this father has, in his writings now extant, appealed to the
Apocalypse but once, need not seem strange. It is enough to suggest,
that he found no occasion to do so more than once. There are other
books of Scripture to which he has not appealed at all; but this makes
nothing against. them. Justin seldom appeals directly to New Tes-
tament books, except where he wishes to illustrate something in the his-
tory of Christ or the apostles; and then, he rarely appeals to them by
name. The Apocalypse, from its very nature, had little to do with the.
subject of his Apologies.or of his Dialogue.

On the whole, even if we allow any weight to the suggestions of
Liicke concerning the uncertain value of Justin’s testimony, it must be
conceded at all events, that Justin believed the Apocalypse to be the
apostle John’s work, because common report so represented it. Can
common report, now, on this subject among Christians at Ephesus, and
so short a time after the death of John, leave us any good room for
doubt as to its correctness? And how can we even suppose that Jus-
tin was not acquainted with it?

(5) Testimony of Melito bishop of Sardis.

Melito was a contemporary of Justin, and bishop of one of the church-
es to which one of the apocalyptic epistles is addressed. He was a
man greatly distinguished for learning and piety ; so much so, that Ter-

312 - § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

tullian, as Jerome asserts (Catal. 24), says, that Christians were wont
to name him a prophet. He was, moreover, unusually inquisitive re-
specting the sacred books. At the request of Onesimus, he made ex-
tracts from the Scriptures respecting the Messianic prophecies; he
also made out, for the same individual, a complete list of the Old Tes-
tament canon, which is still extant in Eusebius, Hist. Ece. 1V.26. The —
testimony of such a man respecting the Apocalypse, is not only very
desirable, but, if accessible, must be of great weight.

He has given, however, no list of the New Testament writings; for
in his time, they were scarcely brought into one combined volume.
Eusebius, after mentioning the titles of various books which Melito had
written, adds to these the following declaration: xai c& megi tov diaBo-
ov, nai tio “Anoxulvwews Jaarvov, 4: 26. Critics are not agreed,
whether this is the title of one book or of two. In the meantime, Je-
rome (Catal. 24) clearly understands the passage as the title of two
books ; for he renders it thus: “ De diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi
Joannis librum unum.” Had Eusebius repeated weg’ before the latter
clause of his expression, it would have clearly meant what Jerome sup-
poses it to mean. But Jerome may have seen the books themselves,
and thus obtained a certain knowledge.

In the meantime, whether two books or one be maa, the substance
of the testimony is the same. Now as Eusebius, who doubted whether
the Apocalypse was an apostolic work, was always on the watch for
anything which might sustain his doubts, it cannot be reasonably sup-
posed that the John here named was, in his view, any other than John
the apostle. Had there fairly been room for a surmise that John the
presbyter was meant, he would surely not have failed to note it, for it
would have been quite sufficient to sustain his doubts. The voice of
nearly all antiquity, which never speaks of any other John than the
apostle, is entirely against John the presbyter here; and this Eusebius
has candidly admitted, by his silence in respect to the subject.

Melito, then, a learned, curious, and critical inquirer, bishop of one
of the churches addressed in the Apocalypse, and belonging to the next
generation after the apostle John, wrote a commentary, or at least a
treatise, on the Apocalypse. Would he have done this, if he had not

regarded the book as genuine, apostolic, and inspired? The probability
is against such a supposition.

(6) Testimony of Theophilus bishop of Antioch.

This writer flourished about. 169—180. Some of his writings still
remain, viz. Libri IJ. ad Autolycum. He appears to have been a:man
of some distinction, ‘“ He wrote a book,” says Eusebius (Ece. Hist.
IV. 24), “against the heresy of Hermogenes, é @ é« vig Amoxadv-

$17. TESTIMONY OF APOLLONIUS AND TRENAEUS. 313

Wes Tooctrvov usyonrar peozveiatc. I need not repeat the remarks
already made on the nature of such an appeal. That John the apostle
is here meant, and that the testimony of the Apocalypse was cited by
Theophilus as Scripture, is quite plain, and was doubtless felt to be so
by Eusebius ; who certainly reports the matter with great ingenuous-
ness.

A passage in the ad Autol. II. 28, Saiuov 88 xa Socxeov xocdsiza,
viz. Satan, has been supposed to refer to Rev. 12:9. It may be so;
but the imitation is not exact enough to render it certain.

(7) Testimony of Apollonius.

This person was a distinguished writer of Asia Minor, near the close
of Cent. I. He wrote a book against the Montanists, from which Eu-
sebius makes long extracts, Ecc. Hist. V.18. This historian also notes
eoncerning Apollonius and his book: Kéyenra: 82 xa aotuplas cmd
tis Loavvov dmoxalvweoe, i. e. “he employs testimony from the Apo-
ealypse of John” What John is meant, is shown by the next clause:
« And he relates that a dead person was raised by this same John,
through divine power.” The apostolic power of working miracles is
hereby plainly supposed. Eusebius evidently thinks of no other John
than the apostle.

‘i (8) Testimony of Irenaeus bishop of Lyons.

Trenaeus was among the most renowned of the early fathers, on ac-
count of his learning, his steadfastness, and his zeal for the truth. He
appears to have been born not far from the beginning of Cent. IL, pro-
bably at Smyrna; and when a youth (zaic w»—év noodry ydixia, Euseb.
V, 20. Tren. Cont. Haer. TI. 3), he was a hearer of Polycarp, and, as
Jerome avers (epist. ad Theodoram), also a disciple of Papias. It is
not. improbable that he went to Rome: with Polycarp, who went thither
in order to compose the Easter controversy when Anicetus was bishop
of that city. We find him afterwards at Lyons in France, first a pres-
byter, and then a bishop after the death of Pothinus. When or why
this transfer of abode took place, we have no certain means of deter-
mining. It must have been when he was about seventy years of age,
that he became a bishop. He wrote his great work, Oontra Haereses,
after this. His martyrdom in extreme old age has been asserted; but
the writers of Cent. III. do not appear to have any knowledge of such
an event.

The importance of his testimony needs no illustration; and this tes-
timony we have in sufficient abundance. I will give some leading pas-
sages, which will serve at once to explain and confirm the others; after

VOL. I. 40

814 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

which I shall merely give references to other passages, in order to avoid
unnecessary repetition of the same views.

In Cont. Haeres. IV. 20. 11, he cites at length Rev. 1: 12—16, and
prefaces it by saying: ‘‘ Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi sa-
cerdotalem et gloriosum regni ejus videns adventum, inquit,” ete. In
V. 26 he says: “ Significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi,
ete.” quoting Rev. 17: 12 seq. The same in IV. 30.4. The like in
TV. 21: 3. V.35. 2. V. 36. 3. In V. 30, the whole strain of argument
and representation is based upon the idea, that John the apostle wrote
the Apocalypse. In Euseb. V. 8 and III. 18, there is a full recogni-
tion of some of these testimonies. And that no other John, than the
author of the Gospel, is the waPyz7¢ tov xveiov who is so often men-
tioned by Jrenaeus, none can doubt, who are familiar with the writings
of this father. Of any other John than this, in the apostolic.ages, he
knows, or at least says, nothing. And although he never speaks of
John by calling him the evangelist or apostle, but names him John the
disciple or simply John ; yet he has given us the key to unl is
meaning in these cases with certainty ; for in III. 1, he says: “ Postea
Johannes, discipulus Domini, et ipse edidit Evangelium.” In Y. 30 is
a passage, before adverted to, which speaks too plainlyto be misunder-
stood. Irenaeus introduces the passage respecting the number of the
beast, which is found in Rey. 13:18. Instead of 666, he says that
some copies of his time read 616. ‘The former,’ he goes on to say,
‘is found éy z&ot onovdatowg xe aoyaiows avtiypdqors, i. e. in all cor-
rect and ancient Codices.’ It follows, then, that in the very next gen- t
eration after the death of John, a difference of copies had already taken
place in regard to this number, and that one class of Mss. had already
become ancient, in the estimation of Irenaeus. This shows, then, not
only the circulation of the Apocalypse among the churches, but its very
early circulation ; and, if the Mss. of the Apocalypse in Irenaeus’ neigh-
borhood be here meant, it shows its wide circulation. Nor is this all.
Irenaeus tells how the true reading may be still further ascertained:
Magrvgovrrar avray éxeivov tov uar ow cov Imcrrnr émpaxdtor,
i. e. ‘Those very persons bear testimony to it, who have seen John
face to face. What John? A subsequent passage (§ 3) tells us:
“For if it [the name of the beast] ought to be openly declared at the
present time, di éxeivou ay 266¢0y rod ual ty» Anoxdluww smpaxdzos,
i. e, then it would have been spoken by him who saw the Apocalypse.”
The John in question, then, is he who saw the apocalyptic vision, who,
as he has spoken out other things in his book, would have spoken out
the mysterious name in question, if it had been proper to do so; and
this is the same John who was seen by those that bore testimony to the
correct reading, i, e. 666. ‘This concatenation is inevitable; and it set-

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS. 815

tles the question, who wrote the Apocalypse, so far as the opinion of
Trenaeus is concerned.

Liicke, however, finds two difficulties in respect to the testimony of
Irenaeus ; ‘first, we do not know on what grounds this father formed
his opinion, i. e. whether he merely followed the current supposition of
the day, that the apostle John wrote the book, or whether he made in-
quiry of such men as Polycarp and Papias ; and secondly, Irenaeus has
erred in respect to the time when the book was written, and why may
he not have erred, too, as to its author?” But does not Irenaeus, in the
passage just cited above, show that he had not been negligent in appeal-
ing to the personal acquaintances of John? Does not the nature of
the case speak for itself, when he tells us with what enthusiasm he
heard Polycarp, in his youth, and how deeply every word he said was
engraven upon his memory? See in Euseb. V. 20. How could aman
capable of writing the Contra Haereses, have been so grossly negligent
of his opportunities of acquiring information? I know well, indeed,
that all this is possible ; but is it probable? Does it accord well with
what we know of Irenaeus? And if the testimony to other books of
the New Testament is to be scanned by such rules as are applied to
this case, is there a single book which can stand? Not one. Should
we not do now in the present case, what we must justify in other cases ?

And if so, we need not ask for any more.
As to the second allegation of Licke, viz. that Irenaeus has erred re-
specting the tme when the Apocalypse was written, and so is not to be
looked upon as a trust-yorthy witness; one might reply in Liicke’s own
words, when he is defending the passage in Justin, cited above, from the
like assault: ““ Whoever errs once, or even many times, does not there-
fore err always, and at all times,” p. 277. But setting aside this just
remark, some other considerations deserve our notice. I have already
given above (pp. 281, 282), what I suppose to be a natural and proba-
ble solution of the cause of Irenaeus’s error. The point of téme when
the Apocalypse was written, could not have been regarded as an essen-
tial one, at the period when this writer lived; John survived two perse-
cutions; these were only some twenty-five years apart; banishment
probably accompanied both; the last of them preceded, by about a cen-
tury, the time when Irenaeus wrote ; and unless Irenaeus, in his youth,
had fastened upon the point of time as a matter of critical inquiry, he
might, in the sequel, make out his opinion merely from the book itself
as it lay before him. ‘There can scarcely be a well-grounded doubt
that he did so; and consequently we have an opinion here which is de-
pendent on his exegesis. It is unnecessary to say to those who are
well acquainted with Irenaeus, that his interpretations were not always
under the control of sound hermeneutical principles. Not a little of his

316 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

exegesis is uncritical; and some of it is absolutely repulsive, by reason
of its visionary phantasies and conceits. But the point whether the
Apocalypse was an apostolic and accredited book, was a very different
matter. Let any one turn to the index of Scripture quotations in Mas-
suet’s edition of Irenaeus, and see with what frequency he has quoted
the Apocalypse. The bare inspection will convince him how deeply
Trenaeus reverenced the book in question. We know well, also, that
he did so, because he regarded it as the production of the apostle John.*

On the whole, if the matter before us were one.of mere eritical skill
and judgment, I am ready to confess, that we could not depend much
on the opinion of Irenaeus, who sometimes errs egregiously in this re-
spect. But as it is, or at least as it wasin his time, a mere matter of
historical inquiry ; as he was familiar with the personal friends of John; ~
as, at all events, he must know the common and prevalent views of the
churches in respect to the authorship of the Apocalypse ; we may fairly
repose a good degree of confidence in his representations that have a
bearing upon the point in question.

(9) Testimony of the epistle of Vienne and Lyo +

The epistle in question was written by the churches Just mentioned,
i.e. in their name, during the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, about. .
177. It was addressed to the churches in Asia Minor and Phrygia.
Eusebius has inserted it at length, in his Hist. Eee. V. 1.

Concerning Vettius Epagathus it says, that “he was a genuine
ple of Christ, cxolovdar z@ cori Om0v ev vacyy;” which last phrase »
is found in Rey. 14: 4. (p. 156, edit. Vales). In the same epistle (p. 159), *
it is said of the aged Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, when taken before the
tribunal which was to condemn him, that we avzod ortog tov youotov,
amedidov thy xadny waotupiar, i. e. ‘as if he were Christ himself, he
gave a good testimony ;’ alluding probably to Rev. 1: 5 or 3:14. On
p- 165 may be found. another probable quotation, in the same epistle,
from Rev. 22: 11; wa 7 youn mijowdIy 0 Kronos avrouncat@ Ext, noel
6 dixatog Sixaiwdyz@ ézt. Possibly, in the second instance above,

‘ 1 Tim. 6: 13 may have been in the mind of the writer; and in the third,
Dan. 12:10. But the passages in the Apocalypse are both nearer to
the expressions in the epistle of the churches, than to those last named.

Not improbably Irenaeus himself wrote the epistle in question. If so,

* I give a list of passages quoted, many of which are quite long, and embrace
even a whole paragraph ; Rey. 1: 12 seq,, p. 256 in Massuet’s edition. 1: 15, p.
244, 1: 17, 18, p. 256. 3: 7, p. 203. 4: 7, p. 190. 5: 6, p. 256. 6: 2, p. 258. 11; 19,
p. 252. 12: 2 seq. (nearly the whole chapter), p. 326. 17: 8, p. 330. 17: 12 seq., p.
323. 19:11 seq., p. 256. 19: 20, p. 326. 20: 6, p. 334. 20: 11 seq., p. 336. 21:1 Seqiy
p. 836, 21: 3, p. 252. 20: 5, 6, p. 336,

Pas

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 317

it would add nothing important to the list of testimony. But even ‘on
this ground, it would serve to show the usual familiarity of the churches
with the Apocalypse, and the credit in which it was held. The pas-
sages in question do-not, indeed, speak directly of John as the author of
the Apocalypse, but they do speak as if the clauses quoted were con-
sidered as belonging to the Scriptures.

(10) Clement of Alexandria.

This celebrated writer flourished at Alexandria, from 192 to near 220.
Although many of his writings are extant, still the references in them
to the Apocalypse are not frequent.

There is no good ground for doubt, from anything which is found in
his works, that. he received and admitted the Apocalypse as a work of
John the apostle. Thus in Strom. IV. 4 he says, when speaking of
the righteous man, that “he shall sit among the twenty-four thrones,
judging the people, w¢ gyow é& ty Anoxalivwe. Iodrrns;” the like in
Strom. VI. Referring to the white robe mentioned in Dan. 7: 9, he
says, that Christ was seen in vision as having a like. robe; and then he
adds: x«i i drondirpt gyot Etdor cas wuyag THY wEmaotvonxote@Yr
vmoxeto tod Puvownoryolov, xu &09n sxcot@ otohy Levxy* which

»_ plainly comes from Rev. 6: 9, 11, p. 201, Wirceb. edit. On p. 528 he
uotes, with an etenzar yéo, Rev. 22:12. Another passage (from p.

is ) has frequently been quoted and relied upon, as vouching for the
apostolic testimony of the Apocalypse, viz. “ And the twelve gates of
t eavenly city, like the twelve precious stones [ Rev. 21: 19 seq. ],

@ ‘we regard as indicating the excellence of the grace of apostolic declara-
tion.” I conceive the idea of this passage to be, that the twelve pre-
cious stones are an emblem of the messages of grace delivered by the
twelve apostles. If this is correct, it exempts the passage from the class
of direct testimonies to the origin. of the Apocalypse, and places it only
among those passages, which show that it was a book to which Clement
made most respectful appeal.

Merkel, indeed, ranks Clement among the opposers of the Apoca-
lypse, because, as he avers, ‘he cites the Apocalypse without adding
anything to show its authenticity.’ But so does he also cite the Gospel,
and first epistle of John; e.g. Paed. ILL. 13, xat adzd¢ ihaouos gore
net tor cmagrior nuwv [1 John 2: 2], we gyow o aden. So in
Strom. II. So, too, Clement often cites Paul and Peter, without nam-
ing them apostles. Nothing can be established from the mere manner
of quotation. Clement also cites many apocryphal books, and some-
times even calls them yeaq7y, But so any pious writing, which circula-
ted among the churches of the primitive age, was called; while pisai«
was appropriated to the Scriptures as such. It is the kind of "ea

318 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

which Clement attributes to the books, rather than his manner of quo-
tation, which is to be considered in relation to the case before us. And
in respect to this, I see nothing to show that he did not quote the
Apocalypse in the highest sense. When he attributes the work to
John, there can be no reasonable ground to doubt, that he meant John
the apostle. ;

(11) Testimony of Tertullian.

This animated and often truly eloquent writer flourished at Carthage,
about 199—220. He was born in that city, and bred up-in the study
of the Latin and Greek languages, of philosophy and the Roman law,
and possessed extensive information. He was somewhat enthusiastic
in his feelings, and, in the latter part of his life, inclined to the defence of
the Montanists. Of this sect more must be said in the sequel. » Suffice
it to say here, that they were strenuous assertors of Ohiliasm. “It has
been said, in order to detract from the weight of Tertullian’s testimony,
that his Montanism influenced him in deciding so strongly in favour of
the Apocalypse. But we shall see, that in this respect his opinio
was the same before he became a Montanist as afterwards. .

The declarations of Tertullian are so frequent and plain, that no
doubt can possibly remain as to his belief. Thus, in Advers. Marcio-
nem, III. 14, he says: “Nam et apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi en-
sem describit ex ore Dei prodeuntem, bis acutum, praeacutum, et
i. e. he refers to Rev. 1:16. Again (ib. § 24), speaking of the New
Jerusalem, he says: “Hance et Ezekiel novit, et apostolus Joannes vi-
dit;” Rev. 21: 2. In De Pudicitia, cap. 19, he speaks of the senti-
ments of Paul and John, and in so doing he quotes largely from the
Apocalypse, as containing the expression of John’s views. In De Re-
surrect. c. 25, he appeals to Rev. 6: 9, respecting the souls of the mar-
tyrs as asking for retribution on the persecutors of the church, and also
to various other passages in the Apocalypse, and cites them as Scrip-
ture. Inc. 27 of the same, he speaks of the mention of the saints?
vestments in the Serdptures, and then cites Rev. 14: 4 as an instance,
and calls it Apocalypsis Johannis. De Anima ¢. 8, he ssays: “ Sic
Joannes in Spiritu Dei factus, animas martyrum eonspiltt viz. as
related in Rev. 6: 9. Inc. 9 of the same treatise, he speaks of John
as having the spirit of prophecy. In Praescriptt. Haeret. c. 46, he
speaks of the heresy of the Nicolaitans as condemned ¢n the Apocalypse,
by the most weighty authority of the sentence of the Lord, quoting Rev.
2: 6. In Advers. Judaeos ¢. 9, he speaks of Babylon as exhibiting a
figure of the Roman city, apud Jod@nnem nostrum ; by which, of course,

_he means the apostle John, and adverts to Rev. xvii. In De Corona
Militis, c. 138, he says: ‘‘ From the inhabitation of that Babylon we are

4

%

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF THRTULLIAN. 3519
removed, 12 <Apocalypsi Joannis ;’ see Rey. 18: 4. In ¢. 15 of the
same treatise, he says: “Nam et reges nos Deo et Patri suo fecit
Christus Jesus;” Rev. 1: 6.

It were easy to adduce many more passages of the like nature; but
itis superfluous. Everywhere in Tertullian, in his writings before and
after his Montanism, he refers to the Apocalypse as Seripture, and as
the work of John; and of John the apostle, too, for he knows nothing of
any other John in the primitive age. Once he merely adverts to the
fact, that Marcion declined to admit the authority of the book ; Advers.
Mare. IV. 5. But he seems not to think his denial worth controversy ;
and apparently so from the feeling, that he thought there could be no
danger from such an unreasonable proposition. If there had. been any
controversy of this kind, when he wrote his books against Marcion,
which seemed in any degree threatening to the credit of the Apocalypse,
Tertullian was one of the last men not to have noticed it and entered
warmly into it. It is evident that he never thought of serious opposi-
tion to the book, unless when he viewed the matter simply in reference
to Marcion. Some opposition did arise on the part of the Alogi in Asia

finor, in his day ; but his book (de Eestasi) in defence of the Montan-
ists has perish and we know not what he may have said there concern-
ing the Apocalypse. He speaks of this book in all his works now ex-
tant, as one about which the church had decided.
~ As to the weight of Tertullian’s testimony, nothing more need be
said, than that it shows what the general opinion of the churches was,
at the time when he lived. _ This opinion of necessity rested on earlier
tradition:. The once living witnesses, the apostolic men, were all dead.
But Tertullian, in his argument against heretics, everywhere urges
with much strenuousness the uniform traditionary doctrines and views
of the churches. We have no room for supposing, in respect to the
point before us, that he did not accord with the all but universal opinion
of the Christian church. The Alogi of his day he could not regard as
seriously disturbing the harmony of this opinion, since they went the
extravagant length of rejecting all the writings of John. Licke sug-
gests, by way of parrying the force of Tertullian’s testimony, that ‘we
cannot conclude from the state and manner of it, that there were, at that
time, no objections against th » Apocalypse of a historical nature, nor
that Tertullian put the tradition which he held, to a thorough test of
examination.’ It is true, indeed, we cannot vouch for it, that Tertullian
knew everything about the history of the New Testament Canon, nor
that he made scrupulous and critical examinations of tradition. But
how many of all the Christian fathers are there, for whom we can give
such vouchers? Wemust go down even to Origen and Jerome for
critical examinations; unless indeed we recognize Melito as having

we

320 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

performed such a task. Yet what had Origen and Jerome to rely upon,
except the tradition of the churches and ecclesiastical men? So far as
mere matter of fact is concerned, e. g. whether this or that tradition ex-
isted and to what extent, Tertullian is a creditable witness ; as credible,
for aught I can see, as they. He was not an ignorant nor an obscure
man. He knew extensively what had been dons; and was doing, among
Christians ; and when he testifies in the manner in which he’ has, re-
specting the Apocalypse, I see no good reason why his testimony is not
valid. It does not, and cannot prove directly and in an apodictic way,
that John wrote the Apocalypse ; but it shows that the churches as a
body, about a century after his death, believed that he wrote it, and at-
tributed it to him. And this is all which Tertullian, or any subsequent
writer, can be considered as proving.

(12) Other early witnesses.

It seems quite probable that the early Latin version which Jerome
corrected and amended, was made in the second century. Augustine.
speaks of the old Latin versions as being made primis fidei temporibus,
Docetr. Christ. II. 11. Cassiodorus (Instt. div. Litt. II. p. 516), speak-
ing of the ancient form of the Vulgate, reckons up the number and order
of the New Testament books comprised in it, and mentions Be a
Johannis as the last.

The Shepherd of Hermas is appealed to by Lardner and C. Fr.
Schmid, as containing passages built upon the Apocalypse; but I
cannot recognize, in any of them, a sufficient similarity to authorize us
to count upon them. See in Schmidii Hist. Ant. Can. p. 298.

C. F. Schmid, (Offenbarung Johannis, pp. 238 seq.), has also ap-
pealed to the Recognitions of Clement in favour of the Apocalypse ;
moreover, to the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs; but in neither
case do the passages produced by him bear any certain evidence of
apocalyptic origin. Mere resemblance is not identity.

The Latin Fragment of some writer, who must have lived not far
from A. D. 200, published by Muratori in his Antiq. Ital. (ITT. p, 854),
beyond all question acknowledges the apostolic origin of the Apocalyse.
Of this book the author speaks thus: “ Apocalypsis etiam Johannis et
Petri tantum recipimus, quam quid ex nostris legi in ecclesia no-
lunt; i.e. as to the Apocalypse of John and Peter, we admit only
[them]; which [last] some of ours are unwilling to have read in the
church.” Before this, the same Fragment says, respecting John: “Et
Johannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septem ecclesiis seribat, tamen omni-
bus dicit, ete.” Vide Schmid’s Offenb, etc. p. 101 seq.

+

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS. 821

(13) Hippolytus, so-called bishop of Portus Romanus.

That there was a bishop of this name, who was the author of nume-
rous writings somewhat distinguished, is clear not only from the. testi-
mony of Eusebius and Jerome, but in the year 1551 a statue of him
was dug up at Rome, filled with various inscriptions, and among them a
catalogue of his works; see in the preface to Fabricius’ edition of the
works of Hippolytus. Eusebius and Jerome, it would seem, were igno-
rant of his place of residence. Zonaras, Nicephorus, and G. Syncellus,
name Portus Romanus. This some have placed in Arabia; some in
Africa; others at Ostia near Rome. The influence which this bishop
had at Rome, and the fact that his statue was found there, make the last
conjecture altogether the more probable one. So the Chronicon Pas-
chale: ézicxonog tov xahovuévov Iogrov, niyciov rig Pojung. He was
a contemporary of Origen, and is said by Photius (Cod. 121) to have
been a disciple of Irenaeus.

There can be no ground of doubt, that he held to the divine authority
of the Apocalypse, nor that he maintained its Johannean origin. Had:
this been otherwise, Eusebius, or some of the ancients, would scarcely
have failed to 0 it, and to say something concerning it. But we
need not rely merely upon this. In the work of Hippolytus De Antichris-
to, §. 36, he says, “ He [John], when he was in the isle of Patmos, og@
anoxuluww uvotnoior :pormtor, i. e. sees the Revelation of awful mys-
teries, declaring which he abundantly instructs others. Tell me, bless-
ed John, apostle and disciple of the Lord, what thou didst see and hear
respecting Babylon.” Immediately he recites the whole of Rev. xvii.
and xviii. as exhibiting the testimony of the apostle. Again, in § 47, he
cites several verses from Rev. xi., introducing them with Agyev Jaarrys.
In § 48, prefaced by Adyar yao Larrys, he cites the last half of Rev.
xiii. In § 50 he cites Rev. 13: 18, introducing it with héyee yao 0 700-
gyens ua anoctolog. In § 60, he cites a large portion of Rev. xii.,
premising Jadrrys pyot. In § 65, he quotes Rev. 20: 6, and assigns
the words to John; and again he quotes Rev. 22: 15, with a ‘Loavyys
Aéye. He adverts, in § 6, to Rev. 5:5; and in § 29, to Rev. 17: 9.

There can be no good ground to doubt the genuineness of this work.
Jerome names it among the works of Hippolytus, Catal. 61; and Pho-
tius also mentions it as one of the books of Hippolytus which he had
read. The matter and manner speak for its genuineness. Moreover,
a large fragment of Hippolytus Cont. Noetum exhibits the same views
respecting the Apocalypse. In § 15 of this fragment, he speaks of what
John says in the Apocalypse, and quotes several verses from Rev. vi.
Opp. Hippol. p. 241, edit. Fabric.

Besides all this, Hippolytus wrote a work egi tov uare Toocrpyy ev-

VOL. I. er
%

'

322 § 17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

ayyellov nel dnoxaddwens, as appears from Jerome (Catal. 61), and
from the inscription on his statue found at Rome. Probably this was
a Commentary ; and on this ground it was appealed to by Andreas and
Arethas, at the beginning of their Commentaries. Possibly it was a
defence of the books of John against the attacks of the Alogi. But the
fact that Hippolytus wrote many commentaries, as Jerome testifies,
(who also names many of them, Catal. 61), renders it more probable
that the work in question was a ‘Commentary. His work De Antichris-
to, from which the citations above are taken, is, indeed, little else than
a Commentary on Daniel and John. Asseman (Bib. Orient. III. p. 15)
produces the words of Ebed Jesu, asserting that “‘ Hippolytus wrote a
defence of the Apocalypse of John the apostle and evangelist.”
Considered as the pupil of Irenaeus (Photius Cod. 121), and as the
author of many Commentaries on various books of Scripture, and of
other learned works ; taking also into view the fact respecting the sta-
tue, erected to his memory as a token of high respect; we must regard
the zeal of Hippolytus for the Apocalypse as good evidence of a strong
conviction of the apostolic authority of the book. There is only one
intervening link, moreover, between him and the contemporaries of John
himself. Hippolytus may, like all the writers of his day, have been but
an indifferent expositor of the symbols and tropes of the prophetic books ;
but this does not prejudice his testimony as to the main fact before us.
Doubt has indeed been suggested, whether his De Antichristo is genu-
ine. But Mill, who seems to doubt all the other works published as
his, inclines to concede its genuineness; Prol. in Nov. Test. The
great body of the learned have admitted it. Besides, Andreas (on Rey.
13: 1. 12: 18, and 17: 10) appeals to this work. On the whole, it must
be reckless criticism that can scornfully set it aside. The strength of
» Hippolytus’ conviction is a thing that ought to be noted. There is no
‘proof that he was inclined to Montanism, so that he might be partial to
he book on this ground. His intimacy with Origen forbids this suppo-
sition. His views, therefore, may be considered as the result of exami-
nation and of the influence of the times upon him. We cannot well
suppose that he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, or a treatise
in defence of it, and yet did not examine at all the question respecting
the authorship of the book. i

(14) Testimony of Origen.

Whatever may be said in respect to any individual of the preceding
witnesses, in the way of derogating from his testimony, there is at least
no room for anything of this nature in regard to Origen. No one of all
the Christian fathers had so much of zeal purely critical as Origen, and
none pushed studies of this nature so far. He closed his astonishing

and useful labours near the middle a century, having lived to

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN. Oo

a good old age. He was, at all events, no Millenarian, and could not
have been influenced by any sectarian views of this sort in his judgment
respecting the Apocalypse. His testimony, therefore, has all the im-
portance attached to it, which was possible at the time in which he liy-
ed; for he made researches respecting the Canon of both the Old Tes-
tament and the New, such as had not before been made, and in many
respects with peculiar advantages. He was born and educated at Alex-
andria, where Clement of Alexandria was his religious teacher, and
Ammonius Saccas, (as some have supposed, but without good evidence),
his master in philosophy and rhetoric. He lived many years in Pales-
tine. And to all his other qualifications he added that of a considerable
knowledge of the Hebrew.

It would be useless to extract a large number of passages from his
writings, in order to illustrate and confirm his testimony. Some two or
three will suffice ; with references to others, which may be consulted if
the reader pleases.

Eusebius (Hist. Ecc. VI. 25) has presented one from Origen’s Ex-
position of the Gospel of Matthew, in which this great critic has given
the Canon of the New Testament, according to the result of his inves-
tigations. What is to our present purpose runs as follows: “ What
shall be said of him who leaned on the bosom of Jesus, viz. John?
He has left us one Gospel, confessing that he could compose so many,
that the world could not contain them; and he, moreover, wrote also the
Apocalypse, being commanded to keep silence and not write what the
seven thunders uttered.” In his Commentary on John, Origen says:
gyow ovy év ry Anoxalvpe o tov ZeBeduiov Jadrvys, i. e. ‘John, the
son of Zebedee says, in the Apocalypse.’ Again, in Commentary in
‘Matthew, he says: “The king of the Romans, as tradition teaches,
condemned John, who bore testimony on account of the word of truth,
to the island of Patmos. Jobn, moreover, teaches what concerns his
testimony, not saying who condemned him; for he speaks thus in the
Apocalypse: Eyo laurvys, 0 adehgos vueoon, HOLL ovynowros &y TH
Twe, x. t. 2. [Rev. 1:9]... . nul boxe yy Anoxaluww ey th ryo@
cEPewoyxevat, i. e. and he seems to have seen the Apocalypse in the
island,” pp. 300, 303, edit. Wirceb. Other passages to the like purpose
may be found in Opp. I. pp. 34, 58, 755. IL. pp. 169, 847, 473, 528,
632. III. pp. 60, 63, 75, 105, 405, 406, 408, 555, 719, 720, 867, 869,
909, 947, 961. Nor are these all.

One circumstance respecting Origen deserves well to be noted. In
all the numerous instances in which he has mentioned and quoted the
Apocalypse, not one word escapes him, to signify that there is any
ground of doubt respecting its genuineness. How comes this? So he
does not, in respect to the epistle to the Hebrews. While he is per-

sa

324 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

suaded that it is Pauline, he still lets us know that there were difficul-
ties in respect to this question. But not so, in regard to the Apocalpyse.
And yet he must have known of the opposition made to John’s Gospel
and Apocalypse, on the part of the Alogi, if not (to the latter) on the
part of Caius at Rome. But not a word escapes him concerning them.
Liicke himself concedes (p. 315), that he has said nothing of any doubts ;
and this because he probably regarded them as too insignificant to be
mentioned. It must have been for some such reason; for Origen was
not the man to conceal difficulties which are formidable in their appear-
ance. The Alogi, although they made some noise and bustle in their
day, were, as we shall see in the sequel, too limited in their numbers
and too circumscribed in their influence to be noticed by Origen, as it
concerns the matter before us. He sympathized with them, indeed, in
respect to opposition against Montanism ; but he did not, like them, re-
ject the Apocalypse of John.

The facts just. stated may serve, perhaps, to cast some doubt on the
alleged opposition of Caius to the Apocalypse of John. How could
Origen fail to notice the opinion of so considerable a man? But of
this, more in the sequel.

» (15) Testimony of Nepos and Coracion.

These persons were officers in the church, and lived in Egypt, near
the middle of the third century. _Nepos was a strong Millenarian; and
Coracion joined him, and even outdid him, in exalting the Apocalypse
at the expense of the other sacred books. Nepos wrote a book against
the Allegorists, and in defence of his Millenarian views; in which he
everywhere appeals to the Apocalypse in support of them. This book
gave rise to another in opposition to it, on the part of Dionysius of Al-
exandria, who seems to have been the first respectable opponent of the
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, unless indeed it can be shown that
Caius of Rome was an opposer. Dionysius himself attributes to Ne-
pos great zeal, activity, and learning in sacred things. He might after
all have been but a poor interpreter of the prophecies, as in fact he
seems to have been; but this is not important to the question, whether
he admitted the divine authority of the Apocalypse and its apostolic
origin. Of the latter there can be no doubt.

(16) Cyprian, bishop of Carthage.

This eloquent man was first a heathen teacher of rhetoric, and late
in life was converted to the Christian faith, about 246. There can be
no doubt in regard to his views of the Apocalypse. In Opp. p. 368 he
says: “In Apocalypsi, angelus Johanni volenti adorare se resistit, et

%

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF VICTORINUS AND METHODIUS. 325

dicit: Vide ne feceris, ete.,” quoting Rev. 22:8. Again, in Opp. p-
176 he says: “ Aquas namque populos significare, in Apocalypsi sertp-
tura divina declarat, dicens: Aquae ete.,” quoting Rey. 17: 15. Ap-
peals to the Apocalypse as a part of Scripture he often makes; e. g.
Opp. pp-59, 854, 400, 402, 403, 408, 410, 424, 425, 427, 430, ete.

What the opinion at Rome was, in his time, is manifest from an epis-
tle written to him by several presbyters. and. deacons there ; in which
Rey. 3: 21 is cited “quasi quadam tuba Evangelii.” Cyp. Opp. pp. 58
—61. In pp. 476 seq. is a letter to Novatian, composed probably by
some unknown person, in which repeated appeals are made to the
Apocalypse as Scripture, and as being the work of John. E. g. (p. 479) :
“Item in-eadem Apocalypsi, hoc quoque Johannes dicit sibi revelatum :
Vidi, inquit, thronum magnum, ete,” quoting Rey. 20: 11.

(17) Victorinus of Pettau or Petavionensis.

This writer, who was bishop of Pettau in Upper Pannonia, perished
as a martyr in the persecution under Diocletian, A. D. 303. _Among
other works, he wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, in Latin ;
which may be found in Biblioth. Max. Patt. Vol. III. The genuine-
ness of this has been called in question by some; but there is no suffi-
cient reason for doubt, as to the great body of the work. Such passages
in it as favoured Chiliasm, (for Victorinus seems to have been a Chi-
liast), are changed, or omitted, and others inserted in their room. Yet
the work of expurgation does not appear to have been complete ; for
(p. 415) we find this clause: “In Judea, ub omnes sancti conventuri

* sunt, et Dominum suum adoraturi,” ete.

On Rey. 10: 4 he says: “Sed quia dicit se scripturum fuisse, Johan-
nes, quanta loquuta fuissent tonitrua... vetatur scribere, sed relinquere
ea signata, qui erat apostolus,” etc. On 10; 11 he says: “ quando hoc
vidit Johannes, erat in insula Patmo.... Ibi ergo vidit Apocalypsin ...
Postea tradidit hanc eandem, quam acceperat a Domino, Apocalypsin.”
The Commentary itself is a pledge for the writer’s opinion as to the au-
thority and importance of the book.

There is, moreover, a Latin poem against Marcion, printed with Ter-
tullian’s works, which Tillemont thinks was composed by Victorinus,
and which frequently alludes to the Apocalypse, and ascribes it to John.

(18) Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Lycia.
This is one of the writers (fl. 290), whom Andreas mentions as testi-
fying to the divine inspiration of the Apocalypse; see p. 305 above.
The works: of this father are mostly lost. Combefisius has, however,

reseued some of them from oblivion, and these may be found in Biblioth.
Max. ILL. p. 675 seq. In his Convivium Virginum, Orat. V. ad fin., it

+h

326 §17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

is said: “Sicut ut Johannes significavit, incensum, quod in vialis 24
Seniorum erat, orationes sanctorum esse dicens.” Rev. 5: 8. Again,
p- 698, D, he says: “Nec partem habebimus, secundum Joannem, in
resurrectione prima ;” Rev. 20: 5. In his De Resurrectione, p.-711, he
says: “ Christus primogenitus mortuorum prophetico apostolicoque prae-
conio celebratur.” Schmidius gives other passages, (Offenb. Johan. p.
310), but these are sufficient. Jerome calls his book (De Resurrec-
tione) opus egregium. (Catal.).
. (19) Lactantius of Firmium.

He belongs to the first quarter of the fourth century. He was an
eminent. teacher and example of eloquence, and has been commonly de-
nominated the Ohristian Otcero. He was a zealous Chiliast, and of
course, as we may naturally suppose, built on the Apocalypse as his
foundation. But he very seldom quotes it, or indeed any other book of
Scripture. After the prolonged representation which he gives of the
millennial state, at the close of Instt. Lib. VII, he assigns a reason why
he omits the quotation of the Scripture: “ Haec sunt quae a prophetis
futura dicuntur ; quorum testimonia et verba ponere, opus non esse duxi,
quoniam esset infinitum.” Cap. 25. In Epit. c. 42, speaking of Christ
he says: “ Hujus nomen nulli est notum, nisi ipsi et Patri, sicut docet
Joannes in Revelatione ;’ Rev. 19:12. In Instt. VII. 10, he plainly —
alludes to Rev. 21: 8. Comp. Instt. II. 12, and see Epit.¢.72. His
taste was as singular as his belief in respect to the Millennium. Instead
of quoting the Scriptures, he everywhere and on all occasions interlards
his discourses excessively with extracts from the putid Sibylline Ora-
cles; which seem to have been as much an object of his wonder and
reverence as the Scriptures. But in this respect we must regard him
as employing his rhetorical art. That he makes such appeals for the
sake of the heathen, and either as an argumentum ad hominem or ad
captandum, seems very evident. Hence the Scriptures are but a se-
condary source of appeal, for him; and it is very difficult to say, where
the boundaries between books canonical and uncanonical lay, as viewed
by his mind. That he enlarged the usual canon, may have been true ;
and the appeal now made to him is principally to show, that in adopting

the Apocalypse, he only did what was commonly done by the churches
in his day.

(20) Athanasius of Alexandria.

This distinguished man, although\then a youth, was present at the
famous Council of Nice, and gave great assistance to those who opposed
Arius. He was made bishop of Alexandria in 326, and died about 373.

Among the numerous writings which he has left behind him, there is

a.

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF EPHREM SYRUS. one

an irhportant fragment of an émorody éograozixy (Opp. Tom. II),
which contains a list of the canon of the Old and New Testament. He
divides the religious books, which were then before the church, into
three classes, viz. (1) Canonical, which, he says, “are the source of
salvation ; in which only is the true doctrine of religion declared; to
which no man can add, and from which none can take away.” Among
these he places the Apocalypse. (2) Ecclesiastical, i. e. such as may be
read in the church for spiritual edification, but are not inspired. (8)
Apocryphal, i. e. such as are supposititious, written by heretics, etc.,
and are adapted to mislead. Besides this full and unquestionable re-
cognition of the Apocalypse, he elsewhere quotes and refers to the book ;
e. g. Cont. Arian. Orat. I. p. 415. Orat. IL. p. 491. Orat. TV. p. 639.
Ep. I. ad Serap. p. 684, ete.

It may be of some importance to note here, that this division of the
Scriptures into three distinctly marked classes, does not correspond
with the varying and inconstant divisions of Eusebius. But Origen
alludes to a like division, and indeed he seems to have introduced it,
viz. yryovae (BiBLov), voOc, pixtai. The first were the inspired ca-
nonical books; the second corresponded with the apocryphal of Atha-
nasius; the third contained good things mixed with some errors, and
hence. were called wixzai. Athanasius (epist. ad Rufinum) recognizes
this distinction; and in it Rufin himself concurs. Yet in the mouth of
other and subsequent writers, the word apoeryphal has occasionally
quite a different meaning, viz. dark, obscure, enigmatical, mysterious,
and the like; and finally, as such books of Scripture, e. g. the Apoca-
lypse, were not usually read in the churches for edification, apocryphal
came to mean, such books as through the difficulty of their contents re-
mained as it were concealed in private hands, not being produced in the
public assemblies. In this last sense, Gregory of Nyssa says: 7xovou
zov evayyelictov Jadrvov & axoxgvepol ... A£yortos, etc., acknow-
ledging the Evangelist as the author, but ranking the book among those
not publicly read.

(21) Ephrem Syrus of Edessa or Nisibe. .

This most copious writer flourished at the close of the third quarter
of Cent IV. The common opinion is, that he was unacquainted with
the Greek language. He wrote, in the Syriac, commentaries, essays,
hymns, ete. Inasmuch as the Peshito or old Syriac version was want-
ing in respect to the Apocalypse, and the Philoxenian version was not
made until a later period, it has been said and asserted by J. D. Mi-
chaelis and others, that Ephrem nowhere cites or refers to this book.
Schmidius, after Hassenkamp, and recently Lengerke, have shown this
to be erroneous. E. g. Opp. Syr. II. p. 832, he says; “John, in his

328 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

Revelation, saw a great, wonderful, divinely written book, sealed “with
seven seals, ete.” Rev. 5:1. Ib. Il. p. 636: “ Terror will seize upon
Death, and he will give up all whom he has devoured... and they
whom the sea has swallowed up, will be awaked and rise again;” Rev.
20: 18. In Opp. Graee. (translation) I. p. 39, he says: “The heaven
is rolled up like a seroll; the stars fall down like the leaves of the fig-
tree; the sun and moon are darkened ;” Rey. 6: 12—14. Ib. Ip. 53:
“ As John has foreshown, saying: I saw a great white throne, etc.;”
Rey. 20:11. In Opp. Graec. II. p. 194. p. 252, he quotes Rey. 4: 8. Im-
mediately after he says: “As John the Seddoyog declared, saying: Be-
hold he cometh in the clouds, ete.,” quoting Rey. 1:7... In Opp. Graee.
III. p. 190, he attacks the Chiliasts, and makes a kind of synopsis of the
Apocalypse. It should be noted, that the Greek volumes of Ephrem
are translations in which a part of his works. is preserved, and not the
originals composed by himself. It seems very clear, then, that in some
way the Apocalypse was known to Ephrem, either through the medium of
a Syriac translation which was before him, or else by the aid of some
friend who understood the Greek. At all events, Ephrem does not
seem to have been at all bound, as to the extent of his Canon, by the
limits of the Peshito as it has come down to us. Must not the Apoca-
lypse, then, in his time, have been circulated among the Syrian church-
es, and regarded as canonical? - How, otherwise, could he appeal to it
in writing for the public?

(22) Hilary of Poictiers.

He flourished at the same time with Ephrem Syrus. He has left
behind him XII. books on the Trinity, commentaries on Matthew and
the Psalms, and other works. In the Paris edition (1693) of his
works, p. 226, he says: “ Sanctus Johannes testatur,” quoting Rev.’
22:2. Again on p. 891: “Et, ex familiaritate Domini, revelatione
coelestium mysteriorum dignus Johannes.”

(23) Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus.

He flourished at the same period as the two preceding writers, and
left numerous works, many of which still survive. In his Haeres, 77,
he says: “It is manifest, that it is written concerning the thousand
years in the Apocalypse of John, and that the book is accredited among
most persons and among the pious.” In Haer. 51, he contends warmly
against the Alogi, because they rejected the Gospel of John and_ his
Apocalypse. In p. 457, he calls John “one of the holy apostles”, and
says that ‘he has imparted of his holy gift, in presenting us with his
Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse.” In Haer..25, he combats the Nico-

e

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF BASIL AND GREGORY. 329

laitans with words cited from Rev. 2: 6, and says that ‘the Apocalypse
is of holy John.’ There can be no possible doubt as to his opinion.

(24) Basil, surnamed the Great.

He was contempory with the three last named writers, and was great-
ly distinguished for his eloquence and his attainments. His works are
very numerous. In Opp. I. p. 249. p. 282, he quotes the Apocalypse
as being the work of the Evangelist John. Arethas, in his Commenta-
ry, (init. cent. VI), speaks of Basil as vouching for the @edmvevotor of
the Apocalypse. These passages decide what rank the father in ques-
tion assigned to the book before us, and who was regarded by him as
the author.

(25) Gregory of Nazianzen.

This celebrated and most eloquent man, who was properly the bish-
op of Sasima in Cappadocia, flourished during the last half of the fourth
century. Jerome calls him preceptor meus; Catal. 117. His testimo-
ny in respect to the Apocalypse has been cited both for and against it.
It needs a little delay to examine this matter. It is quite clear, that in
some passages of his works, Gregory refers to the Apocalypse as a part
of Scripture; e. g. Opp. I. p. 573, he cites verbatim Rey. 1: 8, 0 w»,
nol 0 HY, xe 0 éoyousvos, etc. Again, in T. p. 516, speaking of angels
as presiding over the churches, he adds: wo Iwarrys Sidaoxel we dic
zns Anoneliwens, ete.; Rev. 1: 20. .He seems to have. understood in
a literal way the angel of the church at Ephesus, Smyrna, ete. In
addition to this, we have seen (p. 805 above), that both Andreas and
Arethas testify to Gregory’s belief in the inspiration of the Apocalypse
and its apostolic origin also; for their manner of speaking involves this.
And such being the case, how can we well doubt their statement? An-
dreas was a contemporary of Gregory, and lived in the same province
of Cappadocia, viz. at Caesarea, the capital of the province. Arethas
probably succeeded him. It would seem that they must have known
the views of Gregory.

Yet in Opp. Gregorii II. p. 98, in.some verses by this father respect-
ing “the genuine books of the inspired Scripture,” after reciting all the
scriptural books down to the Apocalypse, he omits that, and adds: aa-
ous éysig. Ei te 58 codtwy éxr0g, ovx &y yrnoiorg: i. e. ‘Thou hast all;
if there be any besides these, they belong not to the genuine.’ I see no
way, now, to solve this difficulty or to reconcile Gregory with himself,
but to suppose that the Apocalypse is counted by Gregory as amoxgvqy
or pwortxy, and so is not inserted in his catalogue of books to be read
in the churches. I have already cited a passage from Gregory of Nyssa,
who was the youngest brother of Basil and contemporary of Gregory

VOL. I. 42

an

330 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

Nazianzen, which speaks of the Apocalypse in such a manner as to
cast some light, perhaps, on this difttoulty. In his Opp+ TI. P. 44, he
says : Tova zov Evayyehorod Tocvyys, Cxcongd pols moos ZOvS TOLOV-
tous Ov atriywarog Aéyort0s" « . Opehoy node. puzods ij Ceords, ete. 5
i. e. I have heard the Brancetiot John enigmatically saying to such per-
sons in his Aidden or concealed [works]... I would thou wert either
cold or hot, ete.; Rev. 8: 15. But this same writer, although he here
speaks of the Apocalypse as being é eoxgiqors, in his life of Ephrem,
III. p. 601, calls the Apocalypse 7 zelevraia zig yaorzog BiBhos, i. e.
the last book of grace, or, in other words, the last of the New Testa-
ment books, thus clearly acknowledging its canonical’ authority. Dio-
nysius the Areopagite, (so-called, but belonging probably to the latter
part of Cent. IV.) ,Opp. I. p. 246, 247, calls the Apocalypse tiv xeugi-
cy xe muoTiayy emoplay TOV TOY WadnroY ayanytoU uai SEecmEciov,
i. e. the hidden and mystical vision of the beloved and inspired one of the
disciples. Comp. with this, Epiphan. Haeres. LI. 3. p. 423. Philas-
trius of Brixia, the friend of Ambrose, (ad fin. Cent. IV.), in his work
De Haeresibus, c. 88, exhibits a catalogue of canonical books, which,
and which only, can be read in the churches. In this he omits the epis-
tle to the Hebrews, and also the Apocalypse. Yet in cap. 60 he de-
clares explicitly, that “those men are heretics who do not receive the
Apocalypse, and that they have no understanding of the excellence and
dienity of this writing.” In ¢. 88, the same writer speaks of Seripturae
absconditae, i. e. apocryphal Scriptures, of which he further says:
“ Quae etsi lege debent morum causa, a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi
debent.” Such then was apparently the nature of the distinction made,
at this time, between the New Testament books for public reading, and
those which were reserved for private perusal. Gregory’s catalogue of
Scriptural books, then, may be regarded as comprising the former ;
while, at the same time, like Philastrius and others, he still admits the
divine authority of the Apocalypse, as a work of the apostle John. In-
deed, the quotations made from him in a preceding paragraph do not
seem to leave us at liberty to draw any other conclusion, unless we
charge him with downright contradiction ; and this, in circumstances
like these, can hardly be done with fairness.

(26) Chrysostom.

Chrysostom flourished during the last quarter of the fourth century
and in the beginning of the fifth. His works which remain are very
copious ; and his character is too well known to need any description,
here. He has left no discourses upon the Apocalypse ; although he
has written homilies on a large portion of the New Testament. But in
his day, the eastern churches rarely made any public use of the Apoc-

TESTIMONY OF AMBROSE AND OTHERS. 331

alypse ; as has been already stated above. Yet Chrysostom, in Hom.

I. in Matth., has plainly and indubitably referred to the Apocalypse 21:

15—21, and drawn lar gely from it in his description of the aie enly
city. References will also be found, to Rev. 20: 11. 19: 14. 5: 11, 20:

14, 12: 9.. Accordingly, Suidas,. under the title Jouevyg, says sof Chry-
sostom: Aéyezas dé 0 Xevodorouos nal cas émiorodas avzov [viz of
John] zée zosi¢, xa ty Anoudhower.

(27) Ambrose, Tichonius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and Philastrius.

Ambrose of Milan (ob. 397) beyond all doubt admitted the authority
of the Apocalypse. One need only refer to his De Virgin. ut., and
his De Penitentia, cap. 9, for conclusive evidence of this.

Tichonius of Africa, the Donatist, (fl. c. 890), wrote a Commentary
on the Apocalypse, and expounded the first resurrection mentioned in
Rey. xx, as meaning regeneration. Of him Gennadius (De Vir. Ilust.
e. 18) says: .“ Exposuit et Apocalypsin Joannis ex integro, nihil in ea
carnale, sed totum intelligens spiritale.”

Julius Firmicus Maternus flourished about 340, under Constantine and
Constans. . In his work still extant, entitled De Errore profan. Religio-
num, ¢. 20, 25, he clearly acknowledges the Apocalypse as a part of
Scripture, by appealing to it, and calling it sancta Kevelatio.

Philastrius Brixiensis flourished about 380, and was the particular
friend of Ambrose. He wrote a book on Heresies. His testimony is
given under that of Gregory of Nazianzen above.

(28) Ruffinus; the Synod of Hippo; and the third and fifth Council at Carthage.

Ruffinus was a contemporary of Philastrius, and is well known for
his translations of Origen, and his contest with Jerome. In his Expo-
sitio Symboli, ete., ¢. 387, he cites “the Apocalypse of John” as an in-
tegral part of the New Testament Canon.

The Council of Hippo, A. D. 393, speak out fully and most explicitly
in Canon XXXVI, in favour of the Apocalypse as of: divine and canon-
ical authority ; Mansi, Nov. Collect. Concil. HI. p. 924.

The third Council of Carthage was held in 397. Can. XLVII.
speaks of the Apocalypse in the same manner as the Council of Hippo.
In both eases, probably out of deference to the church at Rome, it is
added, at the close of the catalogue of canonical books: “ De confir-
mando isto canone transmarina [i. e. Romana] ecclesia consulatur.”

A few years after this, A. D. 419, was held the fifth Council at Car-
thage; and Can. X XIX. of this Council reckons the Apocalypse in the
same mainner among the divine Scriptures, and in the like way directs
the matter to be referred to Boniface, the bishop of Rome, for confirma-
tion. Im this case the Council add, at the close of the 29th Canon:

332 $17. AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE

“‘ Quia et a Patribus ita accepimus in ecclesia legendum,” i. e. we have
received from the fathers, that these books [viz. all that had been men-
tioned | are to be read in the church. But in this catalogue we find also
Solomon, Tobias, Judith, and Maccabees. The only value of this tes-
timony, in the present case, is, that it speaks to the point of the general
reception of the Apocalypse, at that period, as a divine book.

That the references to the church at: Rome are not grounded on any
doubt whether Rome would confirm the Canon proposed, seems to be
clear from an epistle written by Innocent, bishop of Rome, in 405, to
Exuperius the bishop of Toulouse, in which is a catalogue of the ca-
nonical books, agreeing with that of the fifth Council of Carthage. Of
course “the Apocalypse of John” is included in the Canon; Mansi, ut
sup. IIL p. 1041. :

(29) Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

At the time when the Councils of Hippo and Carthage above men-
tioned were held, Augustine flourished. He took an active part in
them, and doubtless exercised an important influence. His opinion re-
specting the Apocalypse is subject to no manner of doubt. Everywhere
in his writings, he appeals to it as a genuine and canonical book. . He
often cites it thus: “Joannes apostolus in Apocalypsi,” Epist. 118 ;
“ Joannes Evangelista, in eo libro qui dicitur Apocalypsis,” De Civit.
Dei, XX. 7; “In Apocalypsi ipsius Joannis, cujus est hoc Evange-
lium,” De Pecc. Mer. I. 27.

(30) Jerome.

Of the knowledge and critical merits of this father nothing needs to
be said here. In all antiquity no one was his equal, as to a critical
knowledge of the Scriptures. . His acquaintance with Greek and He-
brew is known to all readers; and the Latin Vulgate, with his notes
on the Old and New Testament, stands as an indelible monument of
his acquisitions and his diligence.

To quote all that Jerome has said of the Apocalypse, would be su-
perfluous. Two or three passages make the matter as clear as a hun-
dred would. His letter to Paulinus gives in full the canon of the Old
and New Testaments; Opp. IV. p- 571—574. In this he expressly
includes the Apocalypse ; and concerning this he says: ‘“ Apocalypsis
Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito vo-
luminis. Laus omnis inferior est. In verbis singulis multiplices latent
intelligentiae.” In Vol. IV. p. 168, 169, he speaks of “ Johannes et
apostolus, et evangelista, et propheta. _Apostolus, quia seripsit ad eccle-
sias ut magister; Mvangelista, quia librum Evangelii condidit. . . Pro-
pheta, vidit enim in Patmos insula, in quam fuerat a Domitiano principe

Sa

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF JEROME. 833

ob Domini martyrium relegatus, Apocalypsin, infinita futurorum myste-
ria continentem.” In his Comm. on Ps. exlix., he says: “ Legimus
in Apocalypsi Joannis, quae in ecclesiis legitur et recipitur, neque enim
inter apocryphas scripturas habetur, sed inter ecclesiasticas, etc.”

These passages put it beyond all doubt, that Jerome fully and unhesi-
tatingly regarded the Apocalypse as a work of the apostle John. The
last quotation also contains an intimation, that Jerome was aware of
some opposition to the Apocalypse, and of some doubt about its canoni-
eal authority; but that, in spite of this, neither he, nor the churches in
that quarter of the empire where he lived, cherished any doubts in re-
spect to the subject. In his Epist. ad Dardanum we find a passage,
which adverts more plainly to some doubts and difficulties among the
oriental churches of his time, with regard to the Apocalypse. It runs
thus: “ Quod si eam [viz. the Epistle to the Hebrews] Latinorum con-
suetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas, nec Graecorum quidem
ecclesiae Apocalypsin eadem libertate suscipiunt ; et tamen nos utram-
que suscipimus, nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed veterum
seriptorum auctoritatem sequentes, etc.” Here it is plain, that he was
aware of the backwardness of some of the Greek churches, in admitting
the Apocalypse to the honours which it enjoyed in the West. It is
plain, moreover, that he regards this backwardness of the eastern
churches as a thing recently brought into vogue; for he speaks of him-
self and others around him, as veterum scriptorum auctoritates sequentes
in receiving the Apocalypse.

On the whole, the conviction of Jerome, a highly critical investigator,
yea the master-critic of all antiquity, was an intelligent and an undoubt-
ing one. All that Dionysius of Alexandria had said against the apos-
tolic origin of the Apocalypse, and all that Eusebius had recorded, was
before him, and he was most extensively informed as to the opinion of
the churches in different regions.. Yet all this does not appear to have
produced the least hesitancy in his mind, as to what he ought to believe
respecting the apostolic origin and authority of the Revelation.

Liicke, however, in remarking on the testimony of Augustine and Je-
rome, expresses himself thus: “ One perceives that their judgment did
not rest on any historical criticism, but solely and only on the authority
of usage.” But Ihardly know how to explain this. What does it mean
when Jerome says: ‘“ Nos [Apocalypsin] recipimus .. . veterwm scrip-
torum auctoritatem sequentes ?” What other sources of reliance could
Jerome have? It was not, he says, the custom of his times which he
followed, but the authority of the ancient writers. Iam not aware what
conclusions /istorical criticism could make, apart from this authority, or
independently of it. To say that Jerome did not investigate as a critic,
but merely as an implicit believer in tradition, would be to say what

334 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

neither his character nor his works would confirm. Historical criticism
must ‘build with the materials which history supplies ; and this, as Je-
rome explicitly assures us, was the manner in which he built.

(31) Later. Testimonies.

It is of little consequence to pursue the investigation of testimony
lower down than the beginning of the fifth century, whither we have
now brought it. It is confessed, on all hands, thatthe authority of Je-
rome and Augustine procured for the Apocalypse a reception all. but
universal, in after ages. Sulpitius Severus, Gelasius with seventy bish-
ops assembled at Rome in 474, (if indeed his Decretum de Libris recip.
et non recip. ‘is genuine), Innocent I., Primasius, Cassiodorus, the Sy-
nod of Toledo in 638, Isiodorus of. Seville about 630, Nilus, Isidore of
Pelusium, Cyrill of Alexandria, probably Theodoret (he refers to the
Apocalypse in several cases), Andreas of Caesarea, Arethas, the fourth
Council at Constantinople, Jacob of Edessa, Johannes Damascenus, and
finally Theophylact, all receive the Apocalypse.as a divine book, and as
the work of John the apostle ; for where this is not expressly said, it is
implied by the reception of it in the circumstances in which they were.
Whoever wishes to pursue these testimonies, may find them in Schmid’s
Offenbar. Johannis, § 43 seq.,.and also in Lardner. A brief reference
to most.of them may be found likewise in Liicke, p. 343 seq. 4

Thus much for the direct or historical testimony respecting the au-
thorship of the Apocalypse. If this stood alone, and there were no tes-
timony, or at least no seeming testimony, of an opposite nature, no one
conversant with these matters could well hesitate for.a moment, to ad-
mit. that John the apostle was the author of the book. But there are
evidences of some variety of opinion, in ancient. times, respecting the
authorship of the Apocalypse ; and some of them may be traced as far
back as the latter part of the second century. Candour demands of us,
that the witnesses on both sides of the question should be heard.

. JI. EXAMINATION OF ALLEGED DIRECT TESTIMONY AGAINST THE
APOSTOLIC ORIGIN OF THE APOCALYPSE.

We meet with nothing of the kind which deseryes the name of testi-
mony, until nearly a century after the death of the apostle John. . The
testimony of Justin, which has been canvassed above, appears to have
been in accordance with the prevailing, if not the universal, views of the
church, at a very early period; and when Irenaeus and Tertullian come
to speak, no possible doubt can remain as to the views which they ex-
press. Tertullian, indeed, in the latter part of his life,

became a Mon-
tanist ; and this has been looked upon by some,

as the principal induce-

§ 17. VIEWS OF MARCION, 335

ment for him to receive so heartily the Apocalypse, because it was re-
garded as the main support of the leading doctrine of the Montanists,
viz., the visible’ and millennial reign of Christ on earth. But no trace
has yet been found. in Tertullian’s writings, that he ever thought differ-
ently, at different periods of his life, on the subject of the Apocalypse.
It is merely true, that, as was quite natural, his writings after he be-
came a Montanist, more frequently than his other compositions, refer to
the book in question ; e. ¢. his De Pudicitia; De Resurrect. Carnis ;
De Anima; Cont. Marcionem, ete. Indeed, the very fact that the Mon-
-tanists made their appeal to a book, already in general, if not universal-
ly, considered as a part of the New Testament Scriptures, is the only
ground on which we can suppose Tertullian to have been persuaded to
join them, or at least an indispensable condition. Had they appealed to
some Apocalypse of Peter or of Paul, for example, such was the strong
antipathy of Tertullian to all fictitious productions of the like nature,
that we cannot for a moment ‘suppose that he would have listened to
them.

Once, and once only, does Tertullian make mention of any opposition
to the Apocalypse. He is arguing vehemently against the innovations
of Marcion, who mutilated the Gospel of Luke. He lays down the po-
sition, that, as to the New Testament Scriptures, what is most ancient
is true and genuine, and only that. He appeals to the Gospels and
Epistles, as sanctioned by Peter and Paul. He then says: Habemus
et Johannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam, s¢ Apocalypsin ejus Marcion re-
spuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Johannem sta-
bit autorem; Cont. Mare. IV. 5. | Liicke (p. 301) thinks that the last
clause here refers only to John as the founder of the alwmnas ecclesias,
i. e. of the seven Asiatic churches; and he taxes Schott with error, be-
cause he looks upon Tertullian as here claiming ancient tradition in fa-
vour of the Apocalypse. But Liicke himself must, after all, be in the
wrong here. Tertullian, in the whole preceding context, is defending
the antiquity of the sacred books. When he mentions Marcion’s re-
" jection of the Apocalypse, he at once vindicates the antiquity of this, by
appealing to John, the author of it, as the first bishop of the seven
Asiatic churches. He then goes on, in the same way, to show that the
eanoni¢al Gospel of Luke is genuine, because all the churches had re-
ceived it from’ the beginning. I cannot, therefore, have a doubt that
Licke has here mistaken the meaning of Tertullian. ‘The passage,
moreover, in the connection in which it stands, is one of the most direct
and forcible among all the ancient testimonies, with respect to the his-
torical evidence by which the authorship of the apostle John is sup-
ported. '

Of the doubts of Marcion, Tertullian says not another word. Of

)

336 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

course he looked upon them as insignificant, and unworthy of further
notice. Had there been doubts that were spreading, and patronized,
and thus dangerous to the church or to a part of the Scriptures, Ter-
tullian is the last man who would have kept silence.

(1) Opposition to the Apocalypse by the Alogi.

But there were some doubts about the Apocalypse in Tertullian’s
day, that arose from another quarter. They took their rise, as we shall
see in the sequel, from opposition to Montanism.

Not long after the middle of the second century, Montanus, an ob-
scure but zealous and enthusiastic man, and possessed in a more than
ordinary degree, as it would seem, of the talent of popular persuasion,
made his development at Pepuza, a town of Phrygia. He made pre-
tences to prophetic ecstasy, and declared that he was the Comforter or
Paraclete, whom Christ had promised to guide and further instruct his
disciples. He seems to have regarded the Paraclete as some individual
person or man, on whom the Holy Ghost would shower down his gifts
in an extraordinary manner. The leading and peculiar doctrines of his
system were, the personal and millennial reign of Christ on éarth; rigor-
ous asceticism as to fasts, celibacy, contempt of the world, ete.; and
perpetual exclusion from the church of all who were guilty of inconti-
nence, murder, and idolatry. By his zeal and activity, and probably,
moreover, by a good degree of eloquence, he soon won over a consider-
able party in Asia Minor. The only distinguished man that we. know
of, who joined this party, was Tertullian. He wrote a book in their
defence; which is lost. The sect, however, must have been considera-
ble ; for so late as A. D. 530 and 532, we find laws of Justinian passed
against them, Cod. I. tit. V. 1. 18—21.

At Thyatira, the Montanists met with great success. _ Only a small
party remained, who were opposed to them. By degrees, as the con-
test grew warm, this minority separated themselves from the Monta-
nists, and went all lengths in opposition to them. At the same time,
the churches in general became so adverse to the presumptuous claims
and extravagances of Montanus, that he and his party were excluded
from their communion. Tertullian, complains vehemently, that the
bishop of Rome had been persuaded by Praxeas to withdraw. all favour
from them; Cont. Prax. c.1. It should be noted, however, that it was
not on the ground of their denying any of the usual doctrines of the
church, that the Montanists were excommunicated, but on thé ground of
their extravagances and their presumptuous claims. ,

The dispute at Thyatira did not stop even here. Not content with
opposing the Montanists by arguing from the usual Scriptures, the ad-
verse party went on to deny the canonical authority and genuineness of

§ 17. VIEWS OF THE ALOGI. 3837

the Gospel of John and of the Apocalypse. . Montanus supported his
claim to be the Paraclete by the first of these books, and his doctrine
of the Millennium by the second. His adversaries took the shortest
way to rebut his views, viz. that of rejecting the books of Scripture to
which his appeals were principally made.

The fact that they did reject these books, is testified by Philastrius
(Haeres. 60), Epiphanius (Haeres. 51 and 54), Johan. Damascenus
(Haeres. 51), and Augustine (Haeres. 30). In consequence of this de-
nial, Epiphanius, in his account of them, gives them the name of Aoyor,
Alogi. The party does not seem to have had even a separate name, be-
fore his day, (fl. 375) ; nor does it appear to have ever been considerable
enough to attract much notice. _ Eusebius, so watchful to point out here-
sies or commotions in the church, says not one word of them; and the
authors above named, (almost 200 years after the rise of the Alogi),
have given but a very meagre and unsatisfactory account of them. It
seems almost certain, that if they had ever spread themselves much be-
yond Thyatira and its near neighbourhood, that Eusebius must have
known and noticed them, as he has done other sects. . Nor could they
have lasted long as a party; for this would have surely brought them
into more notice. No person is even named as the leader of this sect;
and it seems clear, from all these circumstances, that it never could have
been anything more than a mere temporary party, occasioned by the
dispute with the Montanists at Thyatira.

It is necessary to bring before our minds the facts that have just been
related, in order to form a proper judgment respecting the rejection of
the Apocalypse by the Alogi. Philastrius and Epiphanius, the two
original sources from which everything is derived that respects the Alo-
gi, have neither of them given any reasons or grounds of a historical or
critical nature, why they rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of John.
In the absence historically of all reasons of this kind, we are left merely
to form an opinion from the nature of the case. Nor is it difficult to
satisfy our minds, in regard to this. The dispute ran high, and both
parties were violent and embittered. The Montanists leaned upon the
two books of John. Not able, probably, to meet their antagonists on
exegetical ground and refute them, the Alogi, tacitly yielding to the ex-
egesis of the Montanists, drew the conclusion that the books which con-
tained such sentiments could not be divine, and of course could not be
composed by an apostle. Nothing is more natural than this. How of-
ten has the same thing happened in other ages and in different places !
The leading Reformer had a warm dispute with the Romanists on the
subject of justification by faith alone. ‘They appealed with all confi-
dence to the epistle of James, as deciding against him. He, unable to

‘overthrow their exegesis, rejected the book itself, and called it, in the

VOL. I. 43

338 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

way of contempt, epistola straminea. Yet he admitted New Testament.
books into his Canon, which have less historical evidence in their favour
than this. Many a book, in the New Testament and in the Old also,
has been ejected from the canon, or denied a place there, by individuals,
or by parties, to whose sentiments it appeared to be particularly hostile.
It is the easiest way to dispose of arguments that make against us, by
such a summary process.

Inasmuch now as Eusebius does not even allude to the Alogi, nor
either he or Dionysius of Alexandria refer to them, or to any other sect,
as doubting the apostolical origin of the Apocalypse on historical grounds ;
inasmuch as the nature of the case explains the ground of opposition by
the Alogi; and specially since no teacher or literary man, so far as we
know, ever appeared among the Alogi, who could adequately investi-
gate matters of this kind; it would seem that the opposition of the Alo-
gi to the Apocalypse cannot be regarded as having any weight in the
scale of criticism. Dionysius, in alluding probably to the Alogi (in
Euseb. Hist. Ecc. VII. 25), states merely that they complained of the
Apocalypse as being dark, enigmatical, unintelligible, and unreasonable.
But all these are mere subjective reasons, and belong to their understand-
ing and judgment, rather than to the book itself. Epiphanius alludes
to similar reasons; some of which he assays to refute. No one can
doubt, who knows the opposition of Dionysius to the Apocalypse, that
he would have proffered historical reasons for the doubts of the Alogi,
in case he had found them in his day. But inasmuch as he does not,
we must believe that he did not find them.

Candour seems to demand, then, that we should subscribe to what
Liicke says, at the close of his examination of this matter: “It is clear
as the light, that the Alogi rejected the Apocalypse, not on any historical
ground ... but only and simply because of their exegetical ignorance of
it, and from lack of being well informed in matters pertaining to polem-
ical theology ;” p. 806. And inasmuch as they attributed John’s works
to Cerinthus, we may well say, with Liicke, “ With better exegetical
information, and some taste for poetry, they would not have interpreted
the Apocalypse in so literal and lifeless a manner as to find it destitute
of meaning ; still less would they have found in it the Chiliasm of Ce-
rinthus, which even the most superficial perusal can hardly find there-
in ;” p. 806. It is indeed very evident, that party spirit and the heat of
contest led them on, and that they were guided neither by taste, nor
learning, nor sound judgment. Otherwise, how could they have rejected
the Gospel of John, as well asthe Apocalypse? It cannot be supposed
that this was on the ground of any historical evidence against it. Their
judgment, in the one case, had its basis on the same ground as in the
other, viz., their party feelings. It is plain, that the Montanists must

§17. REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 339

have held both books to be the work of the apostle John, and as such
‘have appealed to them; otherwise they would not have been disclaimed
by the Alogi as his. And this is another evidence, what the views of
the church in general were, at that period, in respect to these books ; for
the Montanists were not accused of any departures. from the common
faith, in regard to matters of this kind.

(2) Rejection of the Apocalypse by Caius, a Presbyter at Rome.
$

‘Three several times Eusebius makes mention of this individual. In
Kce. Hist. II. 25, he introduces him as living at the time of Zephyrinus
bishop of Rome, (i. e. at. the commencement of Cent. III), and as hay-
ing written a book against Proclus, an advocate of the Montanists, and
given some testimony about the burying-place of Peter and Paul. On
this occasion he calls him &xdeovaorix0s &vyo; which shows that he
belonged to the church catholic, and was in good standing there. In VI.
20. he mentions him again as the author of a dtcédoyog against Proclus,
in which he inveighs against the authors of new [fictitious] Scriptures,
and reckons only thirteen epistles of Paul. On this occasion, Eusebius
calls him Aoyiwdzazog, most eloquent ; and he intimates, that he (Eusebi-
us) himself had read his Dialogue, yO 8 sig yds .. . Sueoyos, ete.
The third passage, (which is put in the ast place here because of its
present importance), is in III. 28. Eusebius had been speaking of the
Ebionites, and now goes on.to notice the heresy of Cerinthus. Among
other things, he relates what Caius says of him, in the Dialogue against
the Montanist Proclus, already mentioned above ; which is as follows:
Tuvra mepi aitov yoaper: “Adhd nat Kyow9og, 0, Ov droxaduwésov
Og Um) dmoctOLOV MEychou yeyouppsroor, TEtQahoying yuiv wg St ayyé-
doy aire dedsiyperas wevdouevos énevoayet, Aéyov: Meta cay dvadora-
ow énetysvov sivas 76 Bucthevov tod Xustov, noi modu énvOvuioug nai
noovais év ‘Ieqovoadye tiv ougna mohizevoueryy Sovdsvew. Kat éyOeog
UmaQxar THis youpais tov Hod aovOmoy yidtovtueting év you éootys

_Séhov nhavev héye yivecOout. That. is: ‘He [Caius] writes thus re-
specting him: Moreover Cerinthus, also, by revelations as if written by
a great apostle, in a lying manner introduces to us narrations of wonder-
ful things as shown to him by angels, saying, that after the resurrection
the kingdom of Christ will be earthly, and that the flesh, living in Jeru-
salem, will again serve lusts and pleasures. And being an enemy to the
divine Scriptures, and wishing to mislead, he says that a thousand years
will be spent in wedding feasts.’

This is the celebrated passage on which so much. has been said and
written during the last seventy-five years. To canvass all that has been
said, would be wearisome and to little purpose. Let us see what are

840 . §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

the facts in regard to this passage, the writer of it, and the design that
he must have had in view.

We have seen, that the Dialogue of Caius was in the hands of Euse~
bius, and that he has quoted from it. The design of it is explicitly
stated also. Caius is writing in opposition to Proclus, a strenuous ad-
vocate of Montanism. That the Montanists appealed, in regard to their
millennial views, to the Apocalypse of John, there can be no doubt.

The dispute between them and the Alogi, i ample proof of this. It
was for this reason, that the Alogi denied the genuineness of the Apoca-
lypse. They also attributed the book to Cerinthus; as they did also
the Gospel of John. Caius, so far as the Millennium is concerned, is
acting the same part as the Alogi. Was there, then, an Apocalypse
forged by Cerinthus, which was extant in that day, and to which Caius
here adverts? Or was the Apocalypse of John interpolated by Cerin-
thus, and rejected with scorn by Caius? Or did Caius reject the Apoca~
lypse itself of John, as appealed to by his opponent ?

Each of these positions has been assumed and defended, by writers
of no small ability. For each more or less may be said, with some
plausibility. But as facts are, there seems to me but one conclusion
which will abide a critical trial. Caius, as it would seem, intends to
put down the authority appealed to by the Montanists. And what was
this? Most probably, not any fictitious work of Cerinthus, nor any |
work of John interpolated by him. There is not a word in Eusebius or
in any other ancient writer, not in Irenaeus or in Epiphanius, about
such a work of Cerinthus; much less about the reliance of the Monta-
nists on such a work, unless what the Alogi have said, and Caius, and
Dionysius (of whom in the sequel), is to be taken as evidence of it.
Tertullian, a Montanist, makes no appeals of such a nature ; nor could
he, in consistence with his weil known views about Scripture. If now
we suppose that the Apocalypse of John was the book appealed to by
Proclus, then the declarations of Caius, if correct, would cut the nerve
of Proclus’ argument; for the tenor of Caius’ argument for such a pur-
pose would be this: ‘Your opinion is supported only by a book which
sprung from a heretic, and therefore weighs nothing.’ But on the sup-
position that the Montanists appealed merely to a well known fictitious
Apocalypse, why did Caius introduce the case of Cerinthus? It might
be said, indeed, that it was in the way of illustration; i. e. it was as
much as to say: You are doing just what Cerinthus did, viz. appealing
to false Revelations. Nor can the appositeness of this reply be denied,
in case the Apocalypse in question was fictitious, Yet the similarity of
Caius’ arguing to that of the Alogi, as before exhibited, seems to be so
obvious, that one is naturally inclined to believe, that he must have had:
the same Apocalypse in view; and more especially as he lived at the -

$17. REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 341

same time with the Alogi. How could Proclus, who appealed to the
Apocalypse of John; have been confuted by Caius, in case Caius did
not mean to say, that the Apocalypse to which his opponent appealed
was fictitious, but merely that Cerinthus composed a certain fictitious
Apocalypse, which had no direct relation to the present one? This
question seems to me, in connection with the facts before stated, well
nigh to settle the controversy about the meaning of Caius. Must he
not have meant, that the book to which Proclus appealed was composed
by Cerinthus, and therefore unworthy of credit? But Proclus surely
appealed to an Apocalypse, which he supposed to be the work of John.
Must it not be this work, then, of which Caius affirmed, that it was com-
posed by Cerinthus? ‘This seems, at least, to be the more probable
state of the case. Yet there are some grounds of doubt; and these
must be stated.

(1) The simple reading of the passage in Eusebius, as produced
above, makes naturally the impression, that Caius accuses Cerinthus of
forging a book of revelations, which set forth his extravagant and sen-
sual notions respecting the Millennium ; and that, in order to gain cre-
dit, he affixed to this production the name of a great apostle, i. e. of
John, who most probably must be meant. Were it not for the circum-
stances and the object of the dispute with Proclus, which seem to de-
mand the understanding of the authority to which the latter appeals;
and were it not that no writer of antiquity, if we make the exception
above noted, has hinted at such a fictitious or interpolated work of
Cerinthus ; we should at once give to the passage such an interpreta-
tion. But these considerations stand in the way of so doing.

(2) The title itself as given by Caius,—emoxalvwers plural, not
émoxddvwis—would seem to indicate a work different from that of John.
Eusebius always refers to the Apocalypse by the noun singular, Anouc-
Auwig 3 and this seems to strengthen the consideration. But if we re-
gard the daoxadvwe of Caius as referring to the contents of the Apoca-
lypse, which consist of many visions or revelations, and not to the title,
this difficulty seems to vanish. Indeed, Eusebius has quoted a passage
from Dionysius of Alexandria, in which the Apocalypse is spoken of in
such a way, and by the use of the plural anmoxakwwes. It runs thus:
sof The author | calls himself our brother and companion, and a witness
of Jesus, and blessed éai ti Dee not dno] THY amwoxahuyw é ov, On
account of the seeing and hearing of the revelations.” In alike way
Caius may have used doxalvwets, in the passage under considera-
tion. ; ;

(3) ‘The Chiliasm which Caius attributes to the Revelations in
question, is entirely diverse from that which John has really taught.
Must not the book, then, have been diverse from that of Jobn?’ Cer

342 & § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

tainly, I reply, in case we may suppose that Caius gave it a fair and.
enlightened exegesis. But what is the ground for supposing that he
did? Did not the Alogi interpret the Apocalypse in the like sensuous
manner? Did not even Dionysius the same? Had not Eusebius mis-
givings about the Apocalypse, on a like ground? Did not Justin, Ire-
naeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, yea all the early Christian fathers who
were Millenarians in the grosser sense, interpret in. the like way?
Nothing is plainer, than that the fathers transferred to the millennial pe-
riod many of the promotes of Isaiah and rs respecting it, in a kind
of literal manner. Everywhere we find traces of this. Can it be any
matter of surprise, then, that. Caius does the like? In fact we are not,
as I apprehend, to regard the gloss put upon the Apocalypse in this
case by Caius, as the result of sober investigation‘on his own part. He
takes the exegesis of Proclus, which was doubtless grossly material or
sensuous, and charges it upon the book to which Proclus appealed: In
such circumstances, it matters little what the book actually means in
the view of an enlightened and dispassionate interpreter ; it is enough for
Caius, that he takes his opponent at his word, and so rejects the authen-
ticity of the book. At that time, who had led the way.to a more sober
interpretation ?

(4) 'Theodoret (Fab. Haeret. II. 3) speaks in such a way of Cerin-
thus, as seems to imply, that he had forged an Apocalypse for the pro-
motion of his own designs. His words run thus: Kijewdos xai amoxa- —
Awe twee OS AUTOS DEATamEVOS éMhaouro, nat UmELAOY TI-
vor dWacuallas cvvednue, xa TOU xvgiov THY Buctheiay EpycEer EmtyELor
%osoOat, ete.; i. e. ‘Cerinthus forged certain revelations, as if he him-
self had seen them, and added descriptions of certain terrible things (lit.
doctrines of certain threatenings), and declares that the kingdom of the
Lord will be established on earth,’ etc. The sequel, in Theodoret,
merely repeats, with some variations, what is contained in the passage
of Caius about the Millennium, as quoted above from Eusebius. If
now it could be ascertained, that. Theodoret had himself seen the Azoxa-
Aves of Cerinthus, this passage would settle the question, that there
was a book of that name forged by Cerinthus; for, as we see, Theodo-
ret speaks of the Revelations as being seen by Cerinthus himself. So
much is clear, viz. that Theodoret. understood Caius as speaking to this
purpose. The mistake, if there is one, seems to be made in regard to
the clause avr@ dederyuerac, in the passage from Caius. As it now
stands, avz@ refers to the great apostle; but if Theodoret read KHUT@,
then it would refer to Cerinthus. Hence, probably, his wg adrég Sea-
odpevos, referring to Cerinthus. Nor is it clear what the azeAar twwr
SwWacxakiag ovvednue means. Does it refer to the threatenings at the
end of the Apocalypse; or to the terrible threatenings in the body of

§ 17. REJECTION OF THE APOCALYPSE BY CAIUS. 343

the work, (omitted in Caius’ description as quoted by Eusebius) ; or to
another book, full of threats, composed by Cerinthus? We have no
means of deciding positively. Yet the whole of Theodoret’s descrip-
tion is such, as to make the impression distinctly on my mind, that he
merely copies from Eusebius, with some comments and variations of his
own. What Eusebius or Caius has left uncertain, he represents as
certain, viz. that Cerinthus himself saw, or represents himself as seeing,
the revelations in his i ee leaves this dubious, very possi-
bly because he doubted himself what Caius meant to say respecting it.
Had the former ever seen sucha forged book of Cerinthus, or heard of
it in a credible way, how could he have failed to give us some hint of
it? Caius’ book had come down to him; but not a word of the work
of Cerinthus.

On the whole, after all that has been done to make this matter clear,
some doubt must rest upon it. The ground of all the doubt is the
want of explicitness in the statements of Caius and Eusebius. There is
nothing in the case which renders absurd the position, that Caius meant
to refer to a supposititious work of Cerinthus himself. It may be, that
Caius means simply to compare the doings and opinions of Cerinthus
with those of Proclus. But when he speaks of zezeuhoyiags ywiv...
wevdouevog éevocyet, who can be meant by 7juiy but the church catho-
lic? And how could Cerinthus’ work be spoken of as introduced to
the church catholic? . Liicke thinks this to be a decisive circumstance
in regard to the work spoken of, and that it can refer only to the Apoc-
alypse of John. But this is giving more emphasis to juiv .. . émevocwyet
than necessarily belongs to them. The attempt to introduce, the effort
to introduce, the design to palm, the forged work upon the church catho-
lic, might be, and naturally would be, described in the same way.

We have no alternative, then, but to leave this matter in some uncer-
tainty. If zeal or effort could have fully settled it, it had long ago been
settled. But there is, as has been said, a want of explicitness in the
sources to which we must appeal, that forbids us to assume a confident
position. My own mind preponderates in favour of the view, that Caius
aims at that Apocalypse to which Proclus appeals for confirmation of
his views; and, consequently, that he means to take away the support
of Proclus, by showing that his authority is supposititious.

Why Cerinthus is hit upon as the author of the forged book, is a
question that we cannot with certainty answer; but the principal reason
seems to be, that Cerinthus was not only a Millenarian, but probably
the leading author or defender of very early Chiliasm, i. e. of the Chi-
liasm which was of the grosser and sensual kind. Moreover Cerinthus
was a heretic, a man of some talent, and the author of many new and
strange opinions. There was, as it would seem, no general tradition

844 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR
a

among the ancient churches, that Cerinthus wrote an Apocalypse.
Caius most probably, then, must have argued by drawing conclusions
from the similarity of Cerinthus’ millenarian opinions and those of Pro-
clus.

On the other hand; had Caius known and studied the opinions of
Cerinthus, as they have come down to us, he could never have thought
of him as the author of the Apocalypse ; so exceedingly diverse are the
views of this book, in many respects, from those of the heretic in ques-
tion. For example; that the world was created by an Aeon; that this
Aeon was the God of the Jews, and not the supreme God ; that Jesus
was merely a natural man, with whom the Logos was united at baptism,
but forsook at his crucifixion ; that the laws of Moses must be observed
by Christians, ete.; are things wholly incompatible with the Apocalypse.
Had Caius known of these opinions, (and why should he not?), how
could he attribute the Revelation of John to Cerinthus? In fact, the
more we examine the judgment of Caius in this matter, on the supposi-
tion that he aims at the Apocalypse of John, the less respect must we
feel for his critical opinion and for his exegesis.

And now, how much can be made of Caius’ assertions, supposing, for
the sake of argument, that they are aimed at the Apocalypse of John?
Little, or nothing, most certainly. For what is the ground of them?
Merely and only his antipathy to Chiliasm. John could not have writ-
ten a book, which teaches carnal Chiliasm; and therefore Cerinthus,
who taught such a doctrine, must have written it. Such seems to be the
logic that he employs. His own subjective theological views and judg-
ment are plainly the basis of his opinion. There is no appeal to testi-
mony, tradition, or the opinions of the churches. Most plainly, there-
fore, he argues in the same way as the Alogi; although there is no evi-
dence that he extended his conclusions to the Gospel of John, as they
did. The result, then, is hardly worth the labour necessary to obtain it.
It can make nothing against the Apocalypse, at all events. A judg-
ment made up in such a way, and for such a reason, has very little
claim to our respect or consideration. The fact, that he palms a car-
nal Millennium upon the Apocalypse, is enough to show how little he
understood the book, and indeed how little he had studied it. Had not
so much been made of his testimony, as a witness against the Apoca-
lypse, it would be but a waste of words to discuss it at so great length.

(3) Testimony of Dionysius of Alexandria.

In many respects Dionysius was a distinguished man, and he appears
to have enjoyed a high reputation among his contemporaries. He was
a pupil of Origen, and outlived him only eleven years. He became

§ 17. VIEWs OF DIONYSIUS. 345

bishop of Alexandria in 248, and died in 265. A number of his works
are still extant; but many have perished. Fragments, however, of
most of his lost works are. scattered through the volumes of the later
Fathers; and along extract is preserved in Eusebius, froma work of
his, in two books, entitled zeoi ézwyyeduay, which has relation to the
salijeot before us.

-'The-oecasion of this last amid work must be briefly stated.. Nepos,
an Egyptian bishop in the district of Arsinoé, a man apparently of ar-
dent piety and considerable talent, but somewhat enthusiastic, became a
_ strenuous advocate of the literal Millennium, i. e. of the earthly reign
and kingdom of Christ. Origen, so distinguished for his critical know-
ledge of the Scriptures, had before this avowed his belief in the spirit-
ual sense of the Apocalypse, and consequently had found no difficulty
in the supposition that. John wrote the book. But Nepos rejected this
mode of interpretation; and ina work entitled &eyyos akdnyoguotoiy
(confutation of the allegorists), he maintained with great warmth the
literal reign of Christ on earth. It would seem, from what Eusebius
says of Nepos’ work, that his views approached very near to those of
the Montanists, in respect to the nature of this reign, i. e. that they
were inclined toward sensual gratifications too. much to satisfy the more
‘enlightened and spiritual minded.

Nepos raised up a large party in his favour, in the neighbourhood of
his residence. After his death, Coracion, his follower, kept up the ex-
citement, and even increased: it; so that a number of churches with-
drew themselves from connection with the mother-church at Alexan-
‘dria. » Dionysius (about 255) proposed a conference for the purpose of
mutual explanation and argument... It was accepted; and this distin-
guished man, by his ability and good temper, succeeded in satisfying
Coracion and his friends that they were.in an error. Thus the matter
ended. But Dionysius, in order to prevent the recurrence of the like
strife, soon after wrote a work in two books, entitled, as. has been men-
tioned, zéot éxayyeliar. In the first book he contends against the opin-
ion of Nepos; in the second, he gives his own views of the Apocalypse.
From these, as exhibited by Eusebius Gas Kee, Hist., VU. 24. 25), I
shall now make some extracts.

After preparing the way for the expression of his own views, by
speaking in a kind and brotherly manner of Nepos and his adher-
ents, and after giving some reasons why he deems it important to un-
dertake a refutation of his writings, particularly because some had even
substituted the work of Nepos in the place of the Old and New Testa-
ment Scriptures, he appeals, in respect. to the Apocalypse, (on which
Nepos and his party wholly depended, and the credit of which, it would
seem, Dionysius therefore felt it to be important to shake), first of all,

VOL. I. 44.

846 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

to what some of the ancients thought and said in regard to myeigive
His appeal runs thus : my

« Some of those before us have rejected and de goattinggoll ihe book” en
tirely, examining in detail chapter by chapter, and showing it to be des-.
titute of knowledge and reason. ‘The very inscription, they aver, is
false; for John is not the author. It contains, moreover, no revelation ;
for itis covered with a strong and thick veil of ignorance. “The author
of this writing, also, was not only none of the"postles, but he did not
even belong to the saints or ecclesiastical men. On the other hand,
Cerinthus, he from whom the: heresy was derived which is called after
his name, gave to this his own work a name that was venerable [i. e. of
John], inorder to obtain credit for it. “For this is the purport of his
doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ will be earthly, that it will consist
altogether of those things of which he, with his animal and entirely ear-
nal appetites, was desirous, and of which he dreamed, viz. of the grati-
fication of the appetite, and specially of impure desire, i. e. in meats,
and drinks, and weddings, and (as means by which’such desires might,
be more creditably gratified) in feasts, and grecnos and the eee
of sacred victims.” VII. 25.

Such is the statement of Dionysius respecting the opinion of ziveo ...
tor 200 yur. Who were they? He names no one ; but still it seems
almost certain that he refers to the Alogi and to Caius. At all events,
the opinions of the zive¢ which are mentioned, tally well with the opii-
ions of those just named. The millennial kingdom of the ziveg is earth=
ly and sensual; the Apocalypse is obscure and unintelligible, ete..; just
what the Alogi and Caius affirmed. ‘Then again, it was not John, but.
Cerinthus who wrote the book ; the very same thing: that was affirmed ,
by them. If Dionysius did not mean by zives.. . cov 7790 Huey, the
Alogi and Caius, he must ateleast have meant ron as cherished the
same opinions which they advocated.

But what were the objections of the zive¢ to the Acvorinighsie ? Mere-
ly those which we have already canvassed, viz., such as were urged by
the Alogi and Caius, and were merely and wholly of a subjective nature.
From a false exegesis of the book they drew conclusions against? its
apostolical origin, and ascribed it to Cerinthus. Of course these objec=
tions do not weigh a grain of sand in the balance of just criticism. .

But has Dionysius no knowledge of more weighty objections to the
Apocalypse among the ancients? None. Most surely he would: have
produced them if he had. Could he but have appealed to ancient tra-
dition, i. e. to historical testimony, in favour of his position, it was im-
possible that he should have failed to perceive ‘its superior importance
and cogency ; and of course he would have placed it in the front of all
his arguments, But not a word of all this, He can only allege, that -

Si

*

§ 17. VIPWS OF DIONYSIUS. 847

some of the ancients rejected the Apocalypse because of its obscurity,
and because it taught (as they supposed) an earthly and carnal Millen-
nium. Most clearly, then, Dionysius knew of no Aistorical testimony
against the Apocalypse. It could not well have escaped an intelligent
pupil and friend of Origen, if there was any such testimony at that time.
Of all the men of that. day Origen would be the most likely to know it;
but in all his works, he has never even, intimated. that a doubt of the
genuineness of the Apocalypse was entertained by the churches. He
speaks of this book, with the same certainty that he does of the Gospel
of John. (See pp. 323 seq. above).

_ That Dionysius meant to refer to the Alogi and to Caius, is the more
probable from the mode of expression, tive... tov 200 quar. This
indicates, that they belonged to the. church catholic or orthodox, and
were not heretics. Tiveg... 700 yuav. is as much as to say, ‘ some
who belonged to our church in days that are past.’ He might have re-
ferred to the Marcionites, and to.some other of the Gnostics, as reject-
ing the Apocalypse; but Dionysius well knew that such a reference
would have no force. It would have produced.an effect contrary to what
he intended. So he only speaks of ziveg'..... cov 200 yuov. Neither

2 Alogi nor Caius were outcasts of the church, but regular members.
Lhe former. are reckoned heretics. by some of the subsequent fathers,
_ because they rejected the books of John. . But when they did.so, they

did not, so far as we know, lose their standing at the time in the church.

Thus far, then, we have found.among the churches, before the time of
Dionysius, not a single testimony against the Apocalypse of a historical
nature: Dionysius himself, we are quite certain, found nothing of this
kind among them. - But, inasmuch as we know that he still doubted
the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, on what grounds did he rest his
doubts? On history or testimony as to facts, or only on. subjective
views-and on reasoning from the manner and matter of the book? We

must admit. him to speak for himself. ’

In the sequel of the passage already cited from him, he aga that
he durst not venture upon the rejection of the book (the Apocalypse),
because many brethren have a high regard for it. He.then proceeds thus :
“ But admitting that the comprehension of itis beyond my own under-
standing, I suppose there is some hidden and mysterious meaning
- throughout in its.contents. For even though I do not understand it,
still I suppose some deeper sense is couchedin the words. Not measur-
ing or judging these things by my own reason, but assigning more to
faith, I attribute to it things higher than can be comprehended by me.
I do not reject those things which I cannot comprehend; but they are
more the objects of my wonder, because I do not perceive them.”

It is easy to see, that Dionysius does not mean to revolt the Millena-

348 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

rians by a direct attack upon the book. He covers up, as it were, its
supposed faults; and while he cautiously and warily suggests ‘that it is
unintelligible, he still seems to be willing” to put. this to the account of
sacred mysteries.

- Tn the sequel, says Eusebius, he goes through the whole work, show
ing that the literal sense is impossible. He then adds: “The prophet,
having completed his whole prophecy, so to speak, congratulates both
those who hold it fast, and also himself; for, Hay says he, is every
one who holds fast the words of the prophecy of this —* a near
also, who saw and heard it.” He then proceeds: ae es

“«< That the author was called Joun, and that this composition filam FIN’S,
Ido not deny. I agree that it belongs to some holy and inspired man
I could not indeed concede that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee,
brother of James, to whom belongs the Gospel according to hale nd the
catholic Epistle. Yor l argue from the respective character of both writ-
ings, and from the kind of diction, and from the economy of the said
book [the Apocalypse], that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere
inserts his own name, nor’ proclaims himself, neither in his Gospel nor
in his Epistle. .... John nowhere speaks of himself in the first person,
nor in the third person; but the author of the Apocalypse immediately
names himself in the outset: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, ete... .
which he signified ... to his servant John, etc. ... Then he imseribes
his epistle thus: John to the seven churches which are in Asia, Grace
and Peace; [1: 4]. Moreover the evangelist did ‘not prefix his name
to his catholic epistle.... But the author of the Apocalypse’ did not
deem it sufficient to name himself once, and then to declare what fol-
lows, but he again repeats: I John your brother, ete. [1: 9].- Besides
this, at the close he has again expressed himself thus... . I John, who
saw and heard these things [22: 8]. That Joun was the writer of this
book, is to be believed on the ground of his own affirmation ; but what
John this was, is not clear. For he does not say of himself, as often-
times in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, or
the brother of James, or an eye and ear witness of the Lord. Had he
designed clearly to disclose himself, he would have said some’ of these
things. ‘Yet there is nothing of this; but he has called himself our
brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed sees mt
his seeing and hearing the revelation.

“J suppose, moreover, that there are many of the same name with
John the apostle, who because of their love ‘toward him, and wonder,
and emulation, and desire to be _beloved of the Lord as he was, have
given themselves the same name. In the like way, many a one among
the children of the faithful is called Pazl, and Peter. And besides this,
there is another John in the Acts of the Apostles, surnamed Mark, whom

§ 17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 349

Barnabas and Paul took with them, concerning whom it is said: ‘ They
had John for their minister” Whether this is the person who wrote
[the Apocalypse], I could not say; for it is not written, that he came
with them into Asia. On the contrary, it is said: ‘Paul and those
with him, loosing from Paphos, came to Perga of Pamphylia; but
John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem ;’ [Acts 13: 13].

»~¢ My belief is, that another John, among those who lived in Asia, was
the author ; tnasmuch as the report ts, that there are two sepulchral mon-
uments in Ephesus, each of which bears the name of Joun.

_ “ Moreover, from the thoughts and the words and the arrangement of
- them, this one [the author of the Apocalypse] may with probability be
supposed to be different from that one [John the apostle]. For the
Gospel and the Epistle harmonize well together, and they commence in
the same manner. That says: In the beginning was the Word; this

says: That which was from the beginning. » That says: The Word be-
came flesh, ete. ; this exhibits the same things with slight changes : What

we haye heard, what we have seen with our eyes, etc.... He remains
consistent with himself, and never relinquishes his purpose.

“By the same leading thoughts and words he presents his views
through the whole; examples of which we will now briefly produce. ‘The
careful reader will frequently find in each [viz. in the Gospel and the
Epistle], life, light, chasing away. the darkness ; and continually occurs
truth, grace, flesh and blood of the Lord, judgment, forgiveness: of’ sins,
the love of God toward us, the commandment that we should love one
another, that we should keep all the commandments, accusation of the
aworld, of the devil, of antichrist, the promise of the Holy Spirit, adoption
by God as sons, entire faith required of us, everywhere the Kather
and the Son. Tn general, it is easy for those who distinguish traits, to
see one and the same colouring both in the Gospel and in the Epistle.
But the Apocalypse is exceedingly different, and quite foreign from
this, neither touching nor even hardly approaching any of these things,
nor having, so to speak, one syllable in common with them. Nor does
the Epistle make any mention of the Apocalypse or reference to it, (for
I omit the Gospel), nor the Apocalypse of the Epistle. Yet Paul, in
his Epistles, makes mention even of his unwritten revelations.

“ There is also a discrepancy between the language of the Gospel and
Epistle, compared with that of the Apocalypse. Those are written not
only without offence against the Greek idiom, but are most eloquent in
their diction, modes of reasoning, and arrangement of expressions. We
are far from finding in them any barbarism, or solecism, or any peculiar
idiom. . For the writer, as it seems, possessed by the grace of the Lord
both gifts, viz. that of knowledge and of utterance. I will not deny, in-
deed, that the author of the Apocalypse saw a revelation, and received

350. §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

knowledge and the.gift of prophecy; but I perceive that his diction and
tdiom is not accurate Greek, and that he uses barbarous expressions and
solecisms. It is unnecessary at present. to cull out these; for it is not
for the purpose of scoffing, (let no one supposeit), that I have said these
things, but only in the way of examining the want of resemblance be-
tween those writings.” (Kuseb. Hist. Eee. VII. 25.) ado

I have thus exhibited the testimony of Dionysius at full length
far as anything important to our question is. ¢ ed. Our inc
now is: What is the amount of this testimony?

(1) Then, it is plain and clear, that Dionysius, whil
opinion of ziveg . . . co” 2Q0.yuor, and doubtless means.
intimate that objections against the apostolic origin of
are not altogether new and strange, still does. not harmo
respecting the authorship of this book with those persons to whose
he adverts.. He has no apprehension that. Cerinthus was the author of |
the Apocalypse. How could he entertain such an opinion, in. view of
what the church in general had believed respecting the book, and know- :
ing, as he did, in what estimation Cerinthus was held, and what senti-
ments he had taught and defended—so incompatible with those of the
Apocalypse? On the contrary, he doubts not: that John was the author ;
probably, as he thinks, John the presbyter, but not John the apostle.
He explicitly declares his belief in the inspiration of the writer; and
therefore he must have regarded the book as properly sacred. » Its mys-
terious tenor even, he does not bring forward as an objection to it, but
with seeming reverence he wonders at that which surpasses his under-
standing. The ancients, to whom he refers. as rejecting the work,
made its mysterious manner and style a matter of objection and reproach.
Dionysius, therefore, expressly exempts himself from harmonizing with
them, either as to this objection, or as to their supposed author of the
book.. But,

(2) What then was his object, in expressing his doubts adioais thie
apostohe origin of the book? Clearly it must-have had reference to the
opinions of the Montanists respecting it, whose sentiments he so strong-
ly opposed. They believed the book tohave been written by the apostle
John; and they too, for such were the current views of the times, regarded
an apostolic origin, directly or indirectly, as being necessary to the high-
est eeeny of a book. It is plain, that this lies at the basis of Diony-
sius’ argument. If he could show that the book was not written by the
apostle John, then he would seem to abate in some degree the confidence
that the Montanists reposed.in it. To represent Dionysius as having |
no regard to this in his Critique, as some have recently done in. order -
to give the more weight to his opinion, seems to me quite aside from the
proper mark. Did the ancients; then, write critical reviews in such an

$17. VIEWS OF DIONYSIUS. 351

abstract way as they are written in modern times? . Dionysius doubted,
honestly as we may believe, the apostolic origin and authority of the
book ; but; as he says himself, he would not reject it from the Canon,
because so many were zealously attached to it. So he has steered a
kind of middle course. He speaks respectfully of the book ; does not
even find fault with its mysteries ; allows the inspiration of the author ;
et, He has to undermine its real authority and influence ;

would do this at that time, in case it were fully
ficult part to act, and warily has he performed it.
rest; his own objections are mainly drawn from the
and manner of the book; the subjects treated of are but
to the account. So far as his conjecture respecting
esbyter as the author is concerned, I have discussed the sub-
293 seq. above; and in pp. 289 seq. I have also discussed
jection founded on the frequent mention of the author’s name in
thie Apocalypse, and the omission of it in the Gospel and Epistles. All
the other arguments of Dionysius, drawn from the diction, the dialect,
and the nature of the subjects introduced, ete., will be discussed in. the se-
quel, and need not be introduced here with particularity. It must be
acknowledged, that eccclesiastical antiquity presents us with few speci-
mens indeed of more acute criticism than Dionysius exhibits. It shows
with what attention he had read the works of John, and what powers
of discrimination he possessed. But. modern criticism has gone so far
beyond this, that it would hardly be worth our while here to canvass at
length the objections of Dionysius by themselves. He presents scarcely
a tithe of the objections that now lie before us.

“A few general remarks only it may be proper to make, at present,
before we dismiss this witness. The accusation which the good father
brings against the style of the Apocalypse, viz. that it is not Hellenic,
and that it exhibits barbarisms and solecisms, is now somewhat better
understood than it was in his day. Recent investigations have shown
triumphantly, that there are not more than some two or three grammat-
ical constructions in the whole book, if indeed so many, that cannot be
‘vindicated by examples from even the better Grecian classics. The
Commentary will show this ; and I may be permitted to refer the reader
to §15 in the preceding pages, where the whole subject is discussed.
That John does not conform altogether to classic usage in his style, is
true} and the same is true of all the New Testament writers—true of
John’s Gospel and Epistles, the judgment of Dionysius to the contrary
notwithstanding. They all write Hebrew-Greck. The thoughts and
mode of exhibiting and arranging them, the imagery, the voll of
movement—all, all is Hebrew. Only the words are Greek. If the
Apocalypse Hebraizes more than any other New Testament book, (and

#

352 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

this I cheerfully concede), so it should do, and must do, written under
such circumstances as it was, and following the Hebrew models before
the writer’s mind. And as Dionysius had no knowledge of Hebrew,
and was comparatively but little familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, it
is no wonder that he puts so much to the account of barbarism and poor
Greek. He should however, as it seems to me, have been somewhat
more modest on this point ; at least we may think. so, in ease 2
permitted to judge of his skill to. criticise on Gr t
ner in which he himself writes Greek. Few of the Fa
Alexandrine ; few present more harsh, difficult, and in some ¢
doubtful, constructions than himself. "The Apocalyp
need not shrink from Liem with his Greek.

in the Gospel and Epistle of John, but not to be found, as he sa
the Apocalypse. On this I merely remark, at present, that I dc
see why a writer, who treats, at different times, of subjects almost en-
tirely dissimilar, should always employ the same words or thoughts. I
do not see why poetry and symbol may not have their appropriate cos-
tume. None but a merely mechanical writer always moves in the same
circle. And beyond all this, Dionysius has greatly magnified the dis-
crepancies between the Apocalypse and the other works of John. He
has left wholly out of account the many, and (where the subjects admit)
striking resemblances between them. He seems to have been far more
intent on finding discrepancies, than on finding resemblances. - Tho-
rough criticism must attend to both. . os
Licke takes it for granted, and so Kleuker also seems to decide, that
Dionysius had, or could find, no good historical reasons for assigning the
Apocalypse to the apostle John ;. and consequently that there were none
in his time. But is not this making a conclusion much wider than the pre-
mises? Who was Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Cyprian,
Methodius, and others, at or near the same period? And if little eritical
skill is to be attributed to some of these writers, what shall be said of Ori=
gen, Who never once intimates that any: doubts were extant about the au-
thorship of the Apocalypse? . Did he believe without any reason for it ?
He was no Millenarian. He held to nothing special that would lead
him particularly to favour the Apocalypse. On what ground did he
undoubtingly receive it? f ea
Dionysius did not publish his work, or engage in his dispute with the
Millenarians, until after the death of Origen. Consequently Origen
could not know of the difficulties which the former had with the book.
Origen doubtless knew that there had been some who rejected it; but
he does not deem their objections of importance enough to inset
ed. Why now should so much importance be attached to. Dionysing’ :

-

§ 17. TESTIMONY OF DIONYSIUS. 358

views, who was engaged in a warm dispute, and all of whose difficulties
are subjective and not historical? What good reason is there for regard-
ing his opinion as outweighing that of his teacher and of all his contem-
poraries? That a warm dispute may influence the opinion of an hon-
alented, and even enlightened man, is sufficiently plain from Lu-
dgment about the epistola straminea. Why should we feel any
se, that Dionysius, apprehending that he could produce some spe-
ons, judged it meet by the use of them to undermine, or at
the authority to which his antagonists appealed? The
anner is certainly worthy of all commendation ; but it
ted, I think, whether he ever would have thought of
postolic origin of the Apocalypse, if he had never heard
k, and never engaged in dispute with his followers.

Chus far, then, we have not a particle of Aistoric testimony against the
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse ; and thus far we have pointed, and di-
rect, and often repeated testimony in its favour. And when it is alleged,
in order to rebut this, that we do not know whether one and another of
the fathers, who testify in its favour, derive their opinion from mere
hearsay, or from critical examination, I confess I do not well understand
what to make of this. What book of the New Testament is there, of
which the very same thing may not be said? Yea, of which it has not
been said? In what particular way the fathers of the second and follow-
ing centuries obtained their information and made up their minds, we
have no means of ascertaining. One thing, however, is certain. After
the first century, all information becomes traditional, except that which
the New Testament books themselves contain. The fragments of some
other writers during that period may indeed be consulted; but they do
not, and cannot, speak much in relation to sucha subject. Beyond these,
from Justin Martyr onward, opinion must have been traditional. But a
general, an all but universal tradition, constant, invariable, is the best and
the main evidence we have of the genuineness of many of the most im-
portant ancient writings. I cannot perceive the fairness, then, or even the
relevancy of remarks of this nature, in respect to such men as Justin Mar-
tyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and others. If there be anything im-
portant in such allegations, then there is that in them which will shake
the basis on which rests the genuineness of all the New Testament books.
What one of them is there, that has not been doubted by some? And
how can its real authenticity be established, if we may scatter over all
the testimony in its favour the mists of doubt and uncertainty? There
is scarcely one of the whole, which has more confident and unequivocal
testimony ap its favour than the Apocalypse. Andif this testimony is
unworthy of credit, then where at last shall we land, in pursuing such a
course, except at the metropolis of universal doubt and skepticism ?

VOL. I. 45

854 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

Beyond Dionysius in the third century, and onward in the fourth, we
cannot expect to find anything more than a mere repetition of what
had gone before. No new facts could be developed ; and we meet with
no new views, which are worth particular discussion. But still, for the
satisfaction of the reader, and for the sake of fully holding up both sides
of the question, the doubts of others after the time of Dionysius must
be produced. he

(4) Opinion of Eusebius.

I shall not commence an account of this, as C. F.
an attack on the character and credit of Eusebius as a
had more historical than philological knowledge, is indeed
But this is equally plain of most of the fathers. I cann

without giving him great credit for candour also, and likewise ‘for sin-
cerity, and in general for sobriety. ‘There is nothing in him which
shows that he was an enthusiast, except perhaps on the point of mar-
tyrdom. It has sometimes struck me, that Eusebius would have given
up the Apocalypse as uncanonical, had he not seen in it so much of
Christian zeal and special regard for the honour and reward of martyrs.

He has spoken of the Apocalypse in several places; but always in-
decisively. We can easily discern, however, the real state of his mind,
notwithstanding his apparent indecision. Thus in Ecc. Hist. III. 24,
in speaking of the Evangelists, he mentions the Apocalypse, in connec-
tion with the apostle John, in the following manner: Tyg 8 _Azoxe-
lowes ég’ éxccEoor Ext viv mage ToIs MohAoig meoreAneron 7 SOSa Oucwg
VE UyY &% The TOY aoyalor wagtpiag év oixei uatp@ THY émixorow Sée-
Tou xe adTH, i. e. * The opinion respecting the Apocalypse is even at
present fluctuating. However, at some appropriate time we will pass
our judgment upon it, as it respects the testimony of the ancients.’

Nothing then is here decided. But in the next chapter (III. 25),
after speaking of acknowledged books of the Acts and Epistles, he
goes on to say: “ To these may be added, if’ it seem good (e avery),
the Apocalypse of John; concerning which we shall set forth past
opinions, in due time. These [the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse] are
among the ouodoyovperot, i. e. the universally acknowledged [books].”
He then goes on to mention several books that are among the epzde-
yousrol, i. e. those which are denied or gainsayed, and immediately
subjoins: “And moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John [may be
added], if it seem good (ei gevety), which, as I have remarked, some
reject, but others reckon it among the acknowledged books.’

Here then we have, I apprehend, a true picture of the mind of Eu-
sebius. He is not clear enough in his own views to make the ézixoiow

§ 17. VIEWS OF EUSEBIUS. 855

©

which he had promised in the preceding chapter. He merely leaves the
reader to take his choice; intimating, at the same time, that precedent
is not wanting for either side of the question. But what the precedent
is; who they are that believe or disbelieve; how many of either side ;
when, where ;—of all this, not a word here. In another passage, as we
shall see, he has in part redeemed his promise, by giving the opinion of
some who preceded him against the Apocalypse; although even here he

ebius treats of Papias and his works. In the “E&jyyous
er, Eusebius says that he speaks of several apostles,
is John the evangelist ; “Then,” says Eusebius, “ making
in his narration, he arranges another John with other per-
sons who o not belong to the number of the apostles, placing before
him a certain Aristion ;and he expressly names him [this John] the
presbyter. So that in this way it seems to be shown, that a true story
is told by those, who say that there were two persons in Asia who were
called by the same name; and moreover, that there are two sepulchral
monuments at Ephesus, each of which bears the name of John. ‘To
this one ought to give heed; for it is probable that the second [John],
unless one should insist on the’ first, saw the apocalyptic vision which
bears the name of John.”

Still vacillating. Ei wy cco dou cov zeoror. But what if one
shou!d prefer the jirst John? Why then he may suit himself, as Eu-
sebius would seem to say, and leave others to have their choice. Quite
an accommodation to a certain class of minds !

In VIL. 25, he treats specially and at some length of the Apocalypse.
The reader expects of course, that he will here redeem his promise
made in III. 24. But all which he does is to give an extract from
Dionysius’ work (already above exhibited), which work adverts to the
opinions of those who had lived before him, and also gives the opinion
of the author. It is unnecessary again to repeat the words of Diony-
sius here. Eusebius has however added no ézixgiow, even in this last
passage; still practising the same reserve. Yet from the manner in
which he cites and occasionally comments on Dionysius, it is plain
enough that his critical judgment was inclined to take part with him.
He could not well solve the doubts which Dionysius had raised. Be-
sides; he was a strong Antimillenarian, and as the Chiliasts had made
the Apocalypse their principal authority, from Papias down to the time
of Eusebius, he probably felt less regret at parting with this book, than
he would at parting with almost any other book of the New Testament.
Still, he had great respect for Origen and many others, who, as he knew,
had fully admitted the authenticity of the book. He was very reluc-

356 _ §17. poUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR “+,

tant, also, as Dionysius seems to have been, to hurt the feelings of
great mass of Christians, who beyond all doubt regarded the apostle
John as its author. Hence the apparent vacillation of his opinion.
The truth seems to be, that his critical judgment inclined him toward the
views of Dionysius, while his feelings and his respect for others car-
ried him in an opposite direction. mee 5:

When he is speaking without reference to matters of criticism, he ~~ *
speaks as nearly all other writers of his time do, i. e. he refers to the _
Apocalypse as a divine book and as the work of the apostle John. E.g. _
in Ecc. Hist. III. 29, he is speaking of the heresy of the Nicolaitans, a
and says, among other things, that “the Apocalypse of John age ¥
mention of it, 7¢ Oy xat 7 tov Iwarvov “Anoxdduwig LYN WovEvEl.”

Vit. Const. III. 38, he speaks of Jerusalem as built anew by Co

tine, and says, that “this is perhaps that new Jerusalem celebrated in
the prophetic writings; im respect to which long discourses pronounce in-
numerable eulogies, speaking prophetically by the divine Spirit.” There
can be no good ground to doubt, in the first case, that John there means
the apostle ; nor in the second, that Eusebius refers to the description of
the new Jerusalem in the Apocalypse.

In his Demonstrat. Evangelicae (p. 386 ed. Colon.), speaking of
Christ he says, that “he did not come to seal up prophetic vision ; for
he, of old, opened and disclosed the dark and sealed prophecies, remov-
ing the seals put on them, giving to his disciples the meaning of the di-
vine Scriptures ; whence it is said: Lo! the Lion of the tribe of Judah
hath overcome, and he hath opened the seals put upon the book ; aecord-
ing to the Apocalypse of John.”

In III. 18, Ece. Hist. he is speaking of the banishment of the apostle
John to Patmos; and, in connection with a reference to a passage in
Irenaeus about the mysterious number 666, he speaks of it as “éy ef
*Locrvov Leyousry ‘Anoxadvwet, in the Revelation called John’s.” Once
more, in his Chronicon (p. 208 edit. Seal.), he speaks of John’s banish-
ment to Patmos, and adds: "Erda rir ‘Anoxahvww sdpaxer, wg Snhot
Eioyvaiog, i. e. «where he saw the apocalyptic vision, as Irenaeus shows.’
By here employing the word dyAo07 instead of pyoi, he evidently implies
an assent to what Irenaeus declares; although at other times he eed
ed what he here yields.

The reader will call to mind, that the testimony of Eusebius, if such
it may be called, is a full half century after that of Dionysius. In the
early part of the fourth century, (the period in which Eusebius flourish-
ed), we hear no more of doubts from others than Eusebius, about the
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. Victorinus of Petavium, Pamphilus
of Caesarea (Apol. pro. Orig., Orig. Opp. IV. p. 389, 40), Methodius of
Olympus, Lactantius, Tichonius, Conway Athanasius, and others

®

ch

iz

‘a

§ 17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. 357

lived at or very near the period of Eusebius, speak but one lan-
e. The doubts of Eusebius himself never amounted, as we have
. Seen, to anything like a full and assured persuasion. Neither Eusebius

’_ nor Dionysius, although both believed in the spiritual exegesis, i. e. the

tropical meaning of many Scriptures, appears to have been sufficiently
expert, in the application of the principle, to remove the difficulties they

- had about Chiliasm. Their opposition to this seems plainly to have had

an influence on their opinion about the book, to which the Chiliasts prin-
cipally appealed. But Origen, Methodius, and others, found no embar-
rassment here. And generally—may we not even say universally ?—

at this period, when the Montanist party had become small and had but

ttle influence ; when, moreover, the question of Chiliasm had ceased
© excite any special interest in the churches, inasmuch as the battle had
been fought and won in Egypt by the party opposed to it, and the
churches in general had finally deemed it best to let every one think for
himself in respect. to this matter; all opposition to the Apocalypse either
ceased, or became quite inactive and indifferent. Eusebius, who was
employed in looking up the history of by-gone ages, seems to stand soli-
tary and unsupported at his time by any of the writers now extant, in
regard to difficulties about the origin of the book before us.

(5) Later doubts concerning the Apocalypse.

Although during the lifetime of Eusebius we find no distinguished
writer participating in his doubts, yet at a subsequent period, during the
latter half of the fourth century, there appears, in parts of the oriental
church, to have been scruples in regard to this book, which in some ca-
ses amounted well nigh if not entirely to such a pitch, as to occasion an
effort to exclude it from the Canon. It is necessary briefly to advert to
these, in order to render our canonical history of this book more com-
plete.

The leading men of this period, viz. Athanasius, Ephrem Syrus, Hi-
lary of Poictiers, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Ambrose of Mi-
lan, Chrysostom, Philastrius Brixiensis, Ruffinus, Basil, probably Gre-
gory of Nyssa, the Council of Hippo 393, and of Carthage 397, all
speak in favour of the Apocalypse ; and nearly all of them in language
so decided, as to admit of no possible doubt as to their opinion. But
some exceptions from these have been made and confidently urged ; and
candour demands that some proper notice should be taken of this.

Gregory of Nazianzen composed a piece in verse, which exhibits a
catalogue of the canonical Scriptures; Opp. II. p. 98. In this he omits
the Apocalypse. The passage may be seen, by referring back to § 17.
IL. No. 25 above; where the subject itself of the like omissions, at this
period, is discussed at length, and the bearing of such occurrences ex-

358 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

amined, in reference to the point before us. -A comparison of Nos. 20 .
and 25 (ib.) will place before the reader the principal part of what I #

could wish to say on the present occasion, and it need not be repeated
here. It seems indeed quite plain, that in many places in the Kast, in
order to guard against Montanism and Chiliasm, the bishops omitted to
read the Apocalypse in public, and withdrew the book from the number
of those which were commonly circulated. ~ It is in view of this, that
Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the Apocalypse as being éy amoxovgols,
(see p. 830 above) ; while he still calls it, in another place (ib.), 7 7é-
Aeveaia rig yaoutos Bib1os, clearly acknowledging its authenticity here,
as he does its apostolic origin in the preceding passage to which I have
just referred. In like manner the so-called Dionysius the Areopagite,
(a writer probably of this late period), calls the Apocalypse THY Kovylay
not pvorinyy étowiay, i. e. the hidden and mystical vision; see p. 330
above. But above all, the case of Philastrius of Brixia (fl. 380) illus-
trates this whole matter. In his book De Haeres. c. 88, he exhibits a
list of the books to be read in the churches, omitting both the epistle to
the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. Yet in the same work (c. 60), he
says expressly that “they are heretics, who do not receive the Gospel
of John and his Apocalypse.” Again in c. 88, he speaks of “Seripturae
absconditae, which ought to be read by advanced Christians, but not by
all;” see p. 330. above, for the more complete exhibition of this matter.

In these examples, now, we see very plainly the prévailing tendency
and fashion of the oriental churches in regard. to this matter. Hence it
came about, that so few copies of the Apocalypse are to be found, even
in after times, in the Mss. of the Greek and oriental churches. Mill has
stated a fact in regard to this, which ought here to be particularly no-
ticed. He says: “ The Apocalypse was joined neither with the volume
_ of the Gospels or of the Epistles ; but, as a prophetic book consisting of
matter entirely different from the others, it stood by itself. Hence that
ancient distinction of the New Testament into Adyue Evapyedior, Azoo-
tohov, xe Anoxahvyis.” Millii Proleg. No. 226. We know, more-
over, that there were three different ways of classifying the books of the
New Testament, which prevailed more or less among the ancients, and
specially in the 4th century. The jirst method has reference merely to
public use and reading, as just stated above. It calls those canonical
which are thus read; and others not read, although admitted to be di-
vine, are amoxevgot. The second held all the canonical books to be in-
spired, but no others; and of course might be, and was, a larger canon
than the first. -Apocryphal, with this class, was equivalent to spurious.
So Athanasius, Sophronius, Jerome, and others. A third party had re-
ference only to the supposed critical judgment of the church, i. e. of a
majority of the church, and decided the character of a book on this

2
?
ws

ae

7
.
4

4

x!

§ 17. VIEWs OF LATER WRITERS. 359

ground. Eusebius seems to have belonged to this class ; and Amphilo-
chus, also, in some verses to be mentioned in the sequel. (See C. F.
Schmid’s Offenbar. Johannis, $§ 27, 28 seq.). Hence it is very plain,
that no certain conclusion from this or that passage, in relation to the
subject before us, can be well and accurately drawn, without an inquiry
into the mode of classification which the writer adopts, and some proper
investigation of the ground and object of his judgment. To apply the
word azdxevqor undistinguishingly to the designation of certain books,
at this period, in the same sense in which it was afterwards used, and is
now employed among us, would be to betray a want of knowledge in re-
gard to the usages of the fourth century, in particular of the latter half ,
of it.

“In respect to Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Philastrius,
enough has been said in the preceding paragraphs, and on pages 329,
330 above, to show that a proper distinction between the books for pub-
lic and ordinary reading, and those which, as Philastrius says, “legi
debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent” (p. 330
above), will easily and naturally account for the omission of the Apoca-
lypse in catalogues of canonical books designed for common and public
use. In regard to Gregory of Nazianzen and Philastrius, it is not pos-
sible to admit any other explanation than the one given, without mak-
ing them grossly inconsistent with themselves and even contradictory.
Gregory of Nyssa has made the meaning and explanation of azoxgupor,
in that quarter of the church where most doubt seems to have prevailed
respecting the Apocalypse, so plain and intelligible, that Ido not see
any good room for hesitation. Let us see, now, whether the same prin-
ciple which must be here admitted, is not applicable to other cases, in
which the writers are appealed to as doubting or denying the apostolic
origin and authority of the Apocalypse.

The 60th (59?) Canon of the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia, A. D.
363 (367 ?), has been a standing authority among those who doubt the
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. This was but a small Council, and
it was held in a region where doubts seem to have been more common
than elsewhere. The genuineness of this 60th Canon was called in
question by Spittler, and its credit, for a while, was given up by most
critics. But Bickell (Stud. und Krit. 1830, p. 591 seq.) seems to have
rendered the matter somewhat doubtful, and to have left it in this posi-
tion. Without going at all here into the question of its genuineness,
(for the discussion of which there is no room), I will concede, that the
60th Canon, i. e. the one in question, omits the Apocalypse in the cata-
logue of the sacred books ; just as Gregory Nazianzen and Philastrius
omit it. But does this decide, that the bishops convened in this Coun-
cil rejected the Revelation as a spurious book? Surely not, under

360 $17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

such circumstances as have been described. And indeed there is some-
thing more to be said in this case, that may serve to cast further light
upon it. The Council of Constantinople in 692 admits the Canon of
books named by the Council of Laodicea, and also that named by the
Council of Carthage in 397. Now the latter unequivocally admits the
Apocalypse as a divine book. In what manner, then, did the bishops
at Constantinople reconcile their admission of both Canons? There
seems to be no explanation of this so probable, as the one which allows,
that, while the Council of Laodicea do not include the Apocalypse in
their public canon, they still are not to be understood as casting away
the book. Another circumstance favours this supposition. No subse-
quent ecclesiastical writer appeals to the Council of Laodicea as authori-
ty for neglecting the Apocalypse; and in the Arabic version of the
60th Canon, the Apocalypse is named among the canonical books, as it
is in some of the Latin versions. More especially may we be-disposed
not to be bound by the Council of Laodicea, inasmuch as it includes
Baruch and the epistle of Jeremiah among the canonical books of the
Old Testament.

In like manner the so-called Canons of the Apostles, (a supposititious
work of the latter part of Cent. IV.), are appealed to as omitting the
Apocalypse. In Canon 76 (85), we have a list of sacred books which
does indeed omit it ; but it inserts Judith, three books of the Maccabees,
and two epistles of Clement. This circumstance stamps its character.
‘The whole work is itself a fiction ; and the omission of the Apocalypse
shows, that it must have probably originated at the time, when it was
not uncommon to omit this book in canons for public use. See in
Cotel. Pat. Apostol. I. p. 429 seq.

Amphilochus, bishop of Iconium (fl. 380), an intimate friend of Basil
and of Gregory Nazianzen, wrote some Iambics addressed to Seleucus,
which are printed in Opp. Greg. Nazianz. II. p. 194 seq., and have, by
some, been attributed to Gregory. The verses in question contain a
catalogue of the canonical books; and of the Apocalypse they speak in
the following manner: Ty» 8 Anoxdluww tiv locvov aakw Tiveg
wey eyxoivovow, ot metovg dé ye Nodor Aéyovow, i. e. ‘some admit
moreover the Apocalypse of John, but most persons say it is spurious,’
The friend of Gregory has seemingly gone much further than Gregory
himself, who, in his catalogue, merely passes the book in silence, al-
though he elsewhere plainly recognizes it as a book of authority. Am-
philochus, as it would seem, must in all probability have rejected it.
On what grounds—we are left entirely to conjecture. Possibly he
doubted of it for reasons like to those which Dionysius has given, the
force of which Eusebius seems so much to have felt.

One more writer of this class, of some active eminence in his time,

A

$17. vimws OF LATER WRITERS. 361

(flor. 860, + 386), is Cyrill of Jerusalem. In his Catecheses, (Cat. IV.
36), he exhibits a catalogue of the canonical books, and omits. the
Apocalypse. At the close of his list he says: za@ 08 owe marta eo
zeigt & Sevtgoq, i. c. ‘let all the remaining [books] be placed with-
out among the secondary ones,’ Licke (p. 335) thinks this is decisive,
that Cyrill absolutely rejected as spurious the Apocalypse; and particu-
larly because he does not elsewhere quote from this book. But this last
circumstance is not decisive. His works are not. numerous; and in
general his Catecheses are not of such a nature as would lead him to
quote this book. It was for along time denied. that Chrysostom had
made any use of the Apocalypse; but this at last is amply established,
although his use of if is very unfrequent. But Cyrill, an ardent man,
may well be supposed, in composing catechetical i. e. doctrinal instruc-
tions, not to have had occasion to cite the Apocalypse often, if at all,
even in case he believed in its authenticity. Montanism still existed in
the Kast, and Chiliasm, (which of course accompanied Montanism but
also existed independent of it), had taken root in many places and imain-
tained its ground; as may be seen in the works of Lactantius and oth-
ers in the fourth century. What Cyrill says of Antichrist, and of anoth-
er head of the dragon, (Cat. XV. 12 seq. and 27), must be admitted, to
say the least, to refer to the Apocalypse as a well known book. But
what he says of the period of three and a half years, the appointed time
of Antichrist, where he remarks: ovx && amoxovqor Agyousy, add &x
tov Aap (ib. 13), looks very much like declining to appeal to the
Apocalypse for confirmation of his views about this period. Still it is

- not quite certain that we ought to give it this interpretation; for he

may have chosen the books publicly read as preferable authority for
those whom he addressed, while he regarded the Apocalypse as among
the &dxovgot, in the same way as did Gregory of Nyssa, Philastrius,
and Gregory Nazianzen. Positive evidence of rejection cannot be
found in him, or at least has not yet been produced. Besides, let any
one read through Cat. XV. and ‘he will see, that while Cyrill, in con-
formity with his directions about the Canon in Cat. IV. 36, declines
openly to cite the Apocalypse, yet he has borrowed its language in some
cases beyond. all question ; e. g. Cat. XV. 13, where he says of the
fourth beast, «izog dydo0g Pacthevost, which can be found only in Rev.
17: 11, and is so peculiar as to make the quotation certain. So Cat.
KV. 22 looks altogether like being modified by Rev. 1: 7, although
the quotation may be from Zech. 12: 10—12. In the same place, we
have an expression which the enemies of Christ will utter: 70d gvyo-
bev Gd Moocerov Ths dgy_s cov ;—almost an exact copy of Rev. 6: 16,
put possibly based upon Nah. 1: 6. The index to Cyrilli Opp. Omn,
VOL. I. . 46

362 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

pp. 487, 440 will show the certainty that Cyrill has not unfrequently,
sub rosa, referred to this book.

Thus it would appear, on the whole, that during the last half of the
fourth century, there was a shyness among many of the eastern bishops
in respect to the Apocalypse, even in some cases where the other wrzt-
Aeyouevor, viz. James, 2 Peter, 2d and 3d John, were admitted; e.g. as
in the case of Cyrill of Jerusalem, of the Council at Laodicea (363), of
the author of the Apostolical Canons, and of others. Jerome, who liv-
ed many years in Palestine and must have known the state of things,
testifies to this, in some remarks which he makes on the epistle to the
Hebrews, “If,” says he, “ the usage of the Latins does not receive it
[the epistle to the Hebrews] among the eanonical Scriptures, nee Grae-
corum quidem ecclesiae Apocalypsin eodem libertate suscipiunt, i. €. nei=
ther, by the same liberty, do the churches of the Greeks receive the
Apocalypse.” He then goes on to remark, that contrary to recent usage
(hujus temporis), and following the authority of the ancient writers, he
receives both: It is quite plain from this, that he was acquainted with
the state of things at this period among the oriental churches, as it has
been set forth in the preceding pages. ‘There can be no rational doubt,
that there was a great variety of shades of opinion among those ehurch-
es. Some men were inthe hesitating and vacillating state of Eusebius ;
others, not improbably, may have declined to acknowledge John the
apostle. as the author, in the manner of Dionysius. Others may have
rejected it from their canon; of which, however, there is no positive
evidence, in case we take canonical in the sense of Jerome, i. e. as
meaning an ¢nspired book. Nothing is more likely than all this, if we
contemplate the state of things as exhibited above, in connection with
the declaration of Jerome.

Let us now follow on, somewhat further, this state of things among
the oriental churches. But before we do this, it is proper to advert to
the fact, that the Greek churches were far from being unanimous, in
regard to the doubts and difficulties which have just been laid before
the reader. We have seen-above, under No. L., that Athanasius, Basil
the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem Syrus (con-
nected with the eastern Asiatic churches), Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and
others, had no hesitation about appealing to the Apocalypse as a divine
book ; although, from the nature of its contents, most of them appeal to
it but seldom. Chrysostom, for example, has written no Homilies upon
it; and seldom is it made the basis of any sort of discourse by others:
Most writers seem to have felt doubts about the meaning of various
parts of the book; and while this was the case, it would naturally be
left out of view, in the same way as the Canticles are, at the present
time, by most of our public teachers. It is not difficult, therefore, to ac-

_ § 17. virws OF LATER WRITERS. 863

count for the general ‘silence of the oriental churches, at this period, in
regard to a book so mysterious, and the subject of doubt to a. Eusebius
and a Dionysius. The use which the Montanists and all the Chiliasts
made-of it, was also a ground, as we may reasonably believe, for keep-
ing it back in some measure from the churches, and for omitting it, as
we have seen, in the list of Scriptures to be publicly read.

A state of things like this could not be expected to come speedily to
an end. We are able to obtain, however, but rather an imperfect view
of the succeeding century, in respect to the question before us. As a
matter of critical interest, indeed, it would not be of any serious avail
either for or against the Apocalypse. What has so late an age to do
with the furnishing of evidence that can be relied upon, in regard to
either side of the question? It is‘more a matter of literary curiosity,
to follow further the history of the Apocalypse, than of any importance
in a critical respect.

The testimony of various writers belonging to the Greek church at
this period has already been adverted to, in p. 857 above. There is
not the least doubt of the most full and ample recognition of the Apoca-
lypse by Cyrill of Alexandria, De Adorat. VI. p. 188; by Nilus. of
Constantinople, De Orat. 69.75, 76; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. IL.
175. I. 188. I. 18; Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia (see p. 806
above), who wrote a Commentary on the book, which is the oldest we
have excepting that of Victorinus; Arethas, probably his successor,
who also wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, and most fully ad-
mitted its claims, although he refers (in the introduction) toe seme who
had doubted them.

How Theodore of Mopsuestia, who seems of late to have come into.
high repute, decided in respect to the Apocalypse, we do not know.
Liicke (p. 347) thinks it probable that he was adverse to it, because he
rejected the epistle of James, and withal was not favourably inclined to
the Antilegomeni. Theodoret of Antioch, the commentator; wrote upon
Daniel and many other books; yet only two or three references have
been found in him to the Apocalypse. From these, nothing against the
Apocalypse can be made out, but rather in favour of it. Yet the fact
of his silence, (much like that of Chrysostom), shows that whatever his
views were of the Apocalypse, he did not choose to make it an object of
frequent and familiar reference. This would not prove that he had
doubts about the authorship of the book; but only that he regarded it
as mysterious and difficult of explication ; just as Chrysostom seems to
have done, whose opinion of its genuineness is clear and certain. Asa
general thing, the Antiochian school and region, at that period, i. e. after
350 and so into the next century, were little inclined to bring forward
the Apocalypse. Hence they produced no commentaries or homilies

364 § 17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

upon it. It can hardly be doubted, therefore, that this book was at
least regarded by the leading men of that region, as less useful than

most other sacred books. ' ;

Cosmas Indicopleustes, (an Alexandrian of Cent. VI.), does not re-
fer to the Apocalypse, in his Topog. Christ:; although it would seem
that he had inducements to do so, in book VII. respecting the duration
of the heavens. The Synod of Trulla (692) received the Canon of La-
odicea (363) which omits the Apocalypse ; the Canones Apostolicae do
the same (p. 360 above) ; while, at the same time, the Canons of the
African Synods, at the close of the fifth and beginning of the sixth een-
tury, all include the Apocalypse. Much has. been said upon these oc-
currences, and conclusions have been drawn from them both for and
’ against the Apocalypse. But we have seen that the matter in respect
to the Council of Laodicea is doubtful ; and of course it is doubtful what
was done at Trulla. Whether it was oversight or design in the Synod,
as to the omission of the Apocalypse, (supposing them to have omitted
it), it would be difficult to say. If it was design, it would seem proba-
ble, that the members of the Council. of Trulla meant to leave the re-
ception or omission of the Apocalypse to the: judgment of the respective
churches or bishops. In the like way did the Synod at Nice in 787
decide.

In the eighth century, Johannes Damascenus fully admitted the
Apocalypse; while Nicephorus, of the ninth, adheres to the Synod of —
Laodicea, i. e. omits it. In periods after this, individuals and books
may be met with, here and there, which seem to express doubts about
the Apocalypse; but the general current was undoubtedly in its favour.

Let us now return from this view of the Greek church, followed down
to a period far beyond any critical importance, back to the WESTERN
cuuRCH and see whether any opposition was there made to the Apoea-
lypse. And here all is clear. After the fourth century began, all the
writers of influence move in one direction. Thus Hilary, Ambrose,
Ticonius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Philastrius, the Synod of Hippo
(393), the third Synod of Carthage (397), Innocent bishop ‘of Rome,
Augustine, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus, Gelasius Papa, and still later,
Primasius, Junilius Africanus, the Synod of Toledo—all these and
many others, decide without any doubt or hesitation for the Apocalypse.
And although some of those here named advert to doubts, (e. g. the two,
last named), yet no weight appears to be attached to them. In the
eighth and ninth centuries, here and there a case of doubt may be found
in the western churches; but such cases seem to have been-so local and
temporary as to produce no infltience in checking the mighty current,
all of which, in this region, ran in one direction,

Turn we now ‘to the Syrian cHURCHES, the eastern. part of which

§ 17. VIEWS OF LATER WRITERS. ~ 365

may be separated from the oriental Greek churches as not speaking the
same language. It is now generally acknowledged, that the Peshito or
first Syriac Version of the New Testament was probably made in the
second century, or at least early in the third. Ewald places it still ear-
lier (Apoe. p, 60), as do some others; while a different class assign it
to a later period than that just named; but the most probable statement
seems to be that which I have made. It has often been urged, and is
still urged, as an unanswerable argument against the Apocalypse, that it
is omitted in the Peshito, and has continued to be so in the Mss. copies,
down to the present hour.

If this objection be conclusive, then it extends in like manner to the
2. and.3 John, 2 Peter, and the epistle of Jude, which are all omitted.

The Syrian churches have ever cherished a high veneration for this
version ; as indeed they had reason to do, on account of its excellence.
But when they attribute it even to the apostolic age, as they often do,
we may admire their zeal rather than their critical judgment. The
first certain traces of its use are in Ephrem Syrus’ Commentaries, who
flourished in the latter part of Cent. IV, at the same period with those
Greek fathers brought to view above, who had doubts and difficulties
about the Apocalypse. With these, it is clear, Ephrem did not sympa-
thize, as his works abundantly prove; see under § 17. I. No. 21 above.
From some source in Syriac it is clear that. he must have obtained his
references to the Apocalypse; for it seems to be certain, that he did
not himself understand the Greek; see Sozom. Hist. Ecc. III. 16.
Theod. Hist. Ece. IV.'29. Hug’s Introd. I. § 65, p. 205. Yet he re-
fers familiarly to the Apocalypse, as though his readers would have no
more question about it, than they would about his reference to other
books of Seripture. ‘This fact is one of much importance. To account
for it Eichhorn and Hug resort to the supposition, that the Peshito
originally contained the Apocalypse; and that afterwards, in conse-
quence of the doubts in the Greek churches about this book, and- because
it was not read in the churches, it was omitted. Kolthoff (Apoc. Vin-
dic. p. 27) seems to favour the same opinion. But, with Licke (p. 320),
I must regard this as improbable. It may easily and readily be sup-
posed, that the Lectionaries would omit it; but that all the copies should
have agreed in this, considering the high value set upon the version, can
hardly be deemed probable. »Be this however as it may, the facts re-
main. Ephrem quotes the Apocalypse, and not unfrequently. He
quotes it unhesitatingly as a divine and acknowledged book. Whence
did he obtain these views of it? ‘The manner in which he quotes it
shows, that there must’have been a Syriac version before him. It shows
also that this was well known to his readers, for whom his writings are
intended. Were this otherwise, he must have said something concern-

»

366 §17. DOUBTS RESPECTING THE AUTHOR

ing the matter. When, and by whom, was this version made? These
are questions that we cannot answer. It must have been made for some
time, in order to gain such.a currency and confidence ; and the fact that
Ephrem appeals to the book in such a manner, is good security for the
reputation of the Apocalypse itself in that quarter of the church. If

Ephrem did so, would not others do the same among the Syrian church-
es? The Syrian churches entertained the highest respect for him.
They even named him prophet and interpreter of the divine word. His
works were many of them soon translated into Greek 4 and Jerome as-
sures us (IV. p. 126), that such was his reputation, that ‘in some of the
churches his books were publicly read, after the lection of the Serip-
tures.’ Probably these were his Commentaries, on the passages. of
Scripture that were read. All this shows a state of things far from be-
ing unfavourable to the Apocalypse, in that quarter of the church 5 it
shows also, that there must have been a Syriac version of this book at
that time in use.

‘ But the Peshito does not contain it. What but the rejection of the
divine authority of the book ean account for this? .

_ The problem may be solved in various ways. The person who made
the Peshito version, doubtless made it, in the first instance, for public
use in the churches. Such was the immediate purpose for which nearly
all the primitive versions of the New Testament were made ; see Augus-
ti, Denkwird. VI. p. 118. An indubitable proof that such was the case’
with the Peshito, is, that it exhibits a pretty complete notation of the
Anagnosmata which belong only to public use. The translator may
have designed only to furnish the churches with such a book. Or he
may have died and left’ his work unfinished. And besides these sup-
positions, there is still another and an important attitude of the case.
It is a well known fact, and now generally conceded, that the New Tes-
tament, as a whole, did not assume its present form until the latter part
of the second century, i. e. it was not collected into one body, and re-
garded as one work, before this period. How easy now to suppose, that
the author of the Peshito Version did not obtain a complete copy, but
only a church-copy, i. e. a Lectionary. Mill, in speaking of the custom
of the early ages in respect to the copies of the New Testament says:
“Neque Apocalypsis vel Evangelico vel Epistolico Codici juncta erat;
sed, tanquam Propheticus Liber, diversi prorsus a reliquis argumenti,
seorsim incedebat; unde vetus illa distinctio librorum N. Test. in
Evayyehior, Anootoneor, Koel Anoneliweag Loyuee, apud Origenem,
Comm. in Matt. p. 220.” We have seen already, among the Greek
churches, extensive evidences of such a practice. The. state of Mss.
which have come down to us, shows that such usages prevailed. Who
does not know, that very few copies of the Apocalypse have yet been

&

~§17. views OF LATER WRITERS. 367

found, and how much behind the other books, as to a correct text, this
book still remains? There are so many phenomena of this kind, that
we cannot be mistaken’ in supposing, that even where the Apocalypse
was fully admitted as a sacred book, it was comparatively but little used
and little copied. yen the Philoxenian version, made in 508 by Poly-
earp at the request of Philoxenus, and corrected in 616 by Thomas of
Heraclea, although it originally embraced the Apocalypse, as it is con-
ceeded, is still rarely to be found associated with this book in the Mss.
Thus the best exemplar of White, in his Versio Philox., did not con-
tain the Apocalypse; Pref. p. 22. The three Syriac Mss. in the
Royal Library at Paris, although derived from the Jacobites who ad-
mit the Apocalypse even in their public lections, do not contain this
book ; Schmid’s Offenbarung, p. 161. Moses Mardenus, sent to Europe
by Ignatius patriarch of Antioch in 1552, in order to get the Syriac
New Testament printed; brought no Ms. containing the Apocalypse ;
while, at the same time, he assured those who inquired of him, that
the Apocalypse, and the Epistles, which are omitted in the Peshito,
were regarded by the Syrians as divine. Afterwards he sent a copy of
these books to Europe, which was printed by Lud. de Dieu, and has
been followed by the Polyglots and the common Syriac New Testa-
ments. But down to the present time it does not seem to be settled,
whether the copy of the Apocalypse in question belonged to the Phi-
loxenian version, or was derived from another source; for Mardenus
did not give the source from which he derived his copy.

It would seem, then, that even the Philoxenian, as well as the Pe-
shito, is usually found without the Apocalypse; and yet we know that
the Jacobites and others who admit this, do not reject the authority of
the Apocalypse. In such a state of things, we cannot make much out
of the omission of the Apocalypse in the Peshito; for all the copies of
which we know anything, are later than the period when Ephrem lived.
That the ancient eastern Syrian church rejected the Apocalypse from
the Canon, there is no good evidence whatever. ‘That the very ancient
‘western Syrian church admitted its claims, is clear from the views of
Theophilus of Antioch; see p. 312 above. From the manner in which
Ephrem treats the book, the evidence is conclusive that in his time it
was fully credited. Even more than this it seems necessary to suppose.
How could he speak as he does about it, had he known that it was
doubted, or newly admitted, or held in a vacillating position by his
church? Liicke himself acknowledges, that nothing of any conse-
quence against the book ean be made out from the circumstance of its
omission in the Peshito; Einl. p. 321. There is not a shadow of doubt,
moreover, that when the Philoxenian Version was made, the Apocalypse
was admitted as canonical by the Syrian churches. And if the Apoc-

368 § 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.

alypse attached to the editions of our printed Syriac Testaments, is still
older than the Philoxenian Version, (a thing quite credible), the point
is equally clear in regard to the credit of the book at the time when
that older version was made; for its title attributes the work to John, at
the time when he was banished by, Nero to Patmos.

Thus have we taken a survey of the Greek, the Latin, and the Sy-
rian churches, in search of objections against the authenticity of the
Apocalypse. And WHAT, AND HOW MUCH, HAVE WE FOUND? The
answer to these questions requires separate and distinct notice.

§ 18. Result of historical testimony.

If we include in this what the book says of the author, as has been
done above, we find a series of testimony and tradition, occasionally
called in question or opposed by few indeed, and but for a little time,
until we come down to the latter part of the fourth century. Of the
second century, Papias, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Apollonius,
‘Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, the Testament of
the XII. Patriarchs, Tertullian, Irenaeus, are leading witnesses. In
the third, Methodius, Hippolytus, the Epistle of the Romish Clergy
to Cyprian in 250, Victorinus Petavionensis, Commodianus, Cyprian,
Origen, Nepos, all testify in its favour. In the fourth century, Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Epiphanius,
Ephrem Syrus, Athanasius, Didymus of Alexandria, Macarius, the
Donatists, the third council at Carthage, Prudentius, Hilary, Ambrose.
Philastrius, Ruffin, Jerome, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and
Augustine (if we may reckon him here), all unite in their views in
favour of the Apocalypse. Some of the eastern bishops, as we have
seen, did not include it amorg the books to be publicly read.

To go further than this is needless, and indeed useless in this place.
What is there then to set in opposition to this general, not to say uni-
versal, current of opinion, both early and late? First we have the op-
position of the Alogi, in the second century, on ground confessedly of
party feelings and subjective views. Then comes Caius of Rome, whose
views have been so fully discussed, and whose opposition to the true
Apocalypse remains still a matter somewhat in the dark; but if it was
real, it-was only on subjective grounds and not historical ones, inasmuch:
as he was involved in sharp dispute with the Montanists. Then, near
the middle of the third century, we have Dionysius of Alexandria, who
merely rejects the apostolic origin but not the divine authority of the
book, and gives no historical reasons for his opinion, inasmuch as he ar-
gues merely from the style and diction of the book. We next come, in
the fourth century, to Eusebius, whose mind vacillated in regard to the

§ 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY, 369

question of genuineness, and appears to have remained undecided. But
in the latter part of this century, and in the Greek church of Asia Mi-
nor and some other places, we find a few persons like Cyrill, with
whom Amphilochus may be classed, who cautiously abstained from ap-
pealing to the Apocalypse ; and several of the fathers, who did not in-
clude it in the Canon of books to be publicly read. The Council of
Laodicea may perhaps be reckoned here; if indeed, (which is quite
doubtful), the 60th Canon of the Council is genuine ; (See p. 359 above,
and Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1830, p..591 seq.) After this period, we
find only here and there a solitary voice raised against the Apocalypse,
until, at length, the reception beeame universal, or all but universal.
Modern times have waked up the spirit of controversy about it again,
and the battle is not yet ended.

Now what is therein the nature and manner of this opposition in an-
cient times, which should lead us to reject the Apocalypse? It has,
one may say, undivided and unquestioned sway, down to the time of
Dionysius. There is nothing in all the opposition which would excite
a serious doubt in the mind of any candid and critical investigator. Di-
onysius neither raises nor suggests any Aistorical grounds of doubt. His
other grounds remain to be further examined. Whatever doubt might
arise, or did arise, another century later, was not originated, so far as
we know, by any historical evidence ; for such evidence there is not,
and no appeal is made to it. What reason is there, then, that we should
not give credit to traditionary testimony, so early, so uniform, so long
continued ?

Liicke, when he comes to sum up the whole, concedes, that the exe-
getical phenomena of the book and the tradition of the churches unite
in favour of it. He suggests only, in abatement of this, that from the
third century there was a division of opinion among the churches about
the origin and authority of the Apocalypse. How much this amounts
to, the reader has now had opportunity of seeing and examining.

But why does not Liicke admit, then, the apostolic origin of the book ?
Because, as he avers, there is no proof that the witnesses made thorough
investigation of the matter or subjected it to real critical inquiry. “ Their
opinion,” says he (p. 357), “is no wahres Wissen (true knowledge),
but only a dlosses Meinen (bare supposition)”. As Ihave before remark-
ed (p. 353 above), I cannot conceive on what basis such a statement
rests. What I mean is, that the same requisition which he here makes,
would leave every book in the New Testament destitute of valid sup-
port. None of the witnesses were there to see the actual writing of any
book. Of course that had no true knowledge, in the sense which he
seems to insist on. None of them have any testimony different in na-
ture or kind from that of the Apocalypse. Besides; did not Irenaeus

VOL. I. 47

570 § 18. RESULT OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.

receive testimony from the personal friends of John? Was Origen no
critical investigator? Was Jerome no critic? Too late, indeed, for
the highest purposes of historical criticism, did the latter live ; but not
the former. And even Irenaeus—does he not tell us, in regard to the
wonderful number of the beast, i. e. 666, that he had compared copies—
dncient and recent copies—in which he found this number ; while 616
was-only in the more recent Mss.? In the days of Irenaeus, then, the
Apocalypse had been so long in circulation, that the Mss. were already
classed as ancient and modern. The early credit of the book seems to
be well established from this. And indeed, if the credit due to the
Apocalypse is to be decided only on such grounds as Liicke here as-
sumes, there is not a book of the New Testament that will stand before
the like process and principles of decision. Surely the Gospel and
Epistles of John must fall before them.

Liicke himself is candid enough to admit, that the arguments against
the Apocalypse on historical grounds amount to nothing serious. He
therefore feels obliged to resort to the internal evidences which make
against it, and which he deems ‘sufficient. With all the concessions,
however, which he makes in respect to the weakness of the arguments
from historical facts against the book, he still does not attribute any de-
cisive weight to the external testimony in favour of it. But I do not
perceive in what way my mind can be brought into this position. I
would not say indeed, with Sir Isaac Newton, that “I do not find any
other book of the New Testament which is so strongly established, or
which was written upon so early,” (Rem. on Rev.); but I may say,
with Wetstein, that ‘the Apocalypse from the primitive age was well
known and received.’ There are a number of books admitted into the
New Testament Canon, in respect to which less positive and less gene-
ral evidence can be produced-in behalf of them, than in favour of the
Apocalypse. Licke himself admits some other writings of John on his-
torical grounds less satisfactory.

Indeed, if the claim of the Apocalypse to be of apostolic origin and
canonical, be not admitted, so far as traditionary history is concerned,
one must abandon the admission of any New Testament book on. this
ground. Where is one that has not had its opposers and gainsayers and
doubters, in ages that are past? If now all these are to be chronicled,
and summed up, and brought in competition with. the mighty over-
whelming stream of testimony in the church catholic, in the Latin,
Greek, and Syrian churches, where is the end of dispute and of doubt?
And when are we ever to arrive at stable ground, and occupy it, in re-
gard to such a matter? There iso end to skepticism of this sort, pro-
vided every breath of opposition is to kindle it into life.

It is only in the last half of the fourth century that we find anything

§ 19. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 371

like an extensive state of doubting or hesitation in regard to the Apoca-
lypse; and this was principally among some of the churches in the coun-
tries of Asia Minor. But of this doubt, we know not whether it per-
tained merely to the question of apestolical origin, like the doubt of
Dionysius, or whether the inspiration itself of the book was called in
question. The practice of withholding some books from public lection,
or from common use—an ancient custom among the Jews as to Cohe-
leth and Canticles—makes the omission of the Apocalypse in the lists
of sacred books, at that time and in that quarter, a circumstance on
which little or no dependence can be placed for evidence against the au-
_ thenticity ef the book.

One thing seems quite certain; which is, that if the alleged peculiari-
ties of style and diction in the Apocalypse had not awakened doubts or
suspicion, no one would have ever thought of attributing any deficiency
to the historical evidence in favour of the book. . And.as the whole mat-
ter now stands, the appeal may be made with confidence to all intelli-
gent and candid critics in these matters, whether the historical evidence
in favour of its apostolic origin is not so far satisfactory as to be quite
conclusive, unless the internal phenomena of the book are such as to
render it impossible for impartial judges to acquiesce in the apparent de-
cision of historical testimony.

§19. General Remarks on the alleged indirect testimony against the
apostolic origin of the Apocalypse.

According to the division of the subject made near the commencement
of § 17, this category includes the objections against the apostolic origin
of the Apocalypse, which are drawn from its style, tts sentiments, or its
diction. The peculiar structure of sentences or phrases, unusual regi-
men of words, apparent solecisms or barbarisms, a diction different from
that of John in his Gospel and Epistle, a different use of particles, or of
participles, or of the tenses of verbs, etce., and.a different circle of ideas,
as well as a discrepancy in doctrines—these, and other things connected
with them, have been of late appealed to with an entire confidence, that
the argument drawn from them against the apostolic origin of the Apoc-
alypse is unanswerable. We have already seen what some of the lead-
ing German critics of the present day have said in respect to this mat-
ter, p. 284 seq. above. It is difficult to find more confident assertions
and conclusions, in any part of the domain of criticism, than they have
made in relation to the Apocalypse. The ground on which assertions
so confident rest, ought at least to be very firm and solid; for nothing
less than this can justify declarations of such a character.

A portion of the allegations against the Apocalypse to which I have

3872 § 19. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

&
just adverted, and which pertain to the idiom of the book in various re-
spects, I have already examined at sufficient length in § 15, inasmuch
as these things stand connected with the aesthetical and linguistic cha-
racter of the book. But it still remains, to notice many other particu-
lars which could not there be appropriately considered.

In entering upon such a field, where there is so much that is arbitra-
ry and subjective, so much that depends on taste, imagination, maturity
or immaturity of judgment, nice discernment (or the reverse) as to
points of similarity and dissimilarity, and on the views which different
men may have of what is evidence of homogeneousness of authorship or
of the contrary, it is impossible not to feel a degree of embarrassment
and reluctance. And this is not a little increased, by looking back upon
the history of internal criticism for some time past. The old Testament
and the New have both experienced a large measure of arbitrary e7vi-
tique. A full history of criticism in respect to it, would be replete with
warning and instruction to bold and confident adventurers. The Pen-
tateuch, and specially the book of Deuteronomy, has been characterized
in a manner directly opposite, by writers of high renown. So has it
fared with the book of Job; specially with the speeches of Elihu, the
prologue, and epilogue. Isaiah has come in for a full share of the like
criticism. The most discrepant and directly opposite opinions have been
formed and proclaimed respecting the last twenty-six chapters of this
book, and various other portions of it, both as to the style and diction.
So it is with the book of Zechariah, and some others. But not to insist
on these, if we come to the New Testament, we shall find the same dis-
crepancies. Matthew has been rejected by Schulz and others as an un-
worthy and incredible document. The Gospel of John has been reject-
ed by Eckermann, J. E. C. Schmidt, Vogel. Horst, Bretschneider, and
others. De Wette doubts whether Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles ;
as do some others. He also doubts the first epistle of Peter, and the epis-
tle to the Ephesians. The 2 Thess. he thinks is interpolated ; as does
Schmidt also. Lange, Cludius, Bretschneider, and others, doubt whether
the first epistle of John is genuine. Schleiermacher calls in question the
first epistle to Timothy. Eichhorn and De Wette argue against the
credit of all the pastoral epistles. And in almost all these cases, reliance
is placed almost entirely on the internal evidences of discrepancy in
style, i. e. on this as judged of by the respective writers. Bretschneider
represents the factitious author of John’s Gospel as concealing his
(John’s) name, that he might seem to be the more sincere to the reader
and not appear to be fraudulent in his design (p- 112 Prob.) ; while (on
p: 228) he speaks of there being men in the church who would detect
and expose the fraud. Schleiermacher, on 1 Timothy, declares that
“all the epistles of Paul exceed this in expression ;” while Eichhorn,

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 873

on tient opposite ground, rejects the Pauline origin of the pastoral
epistles, “ because they are adorned with a perspicuity, a concinnity,
and an elegance, which is wanting in the Pauline epistles.”

These are but mere specimens of what might easily be produced, even
to the satiety of the reader. In regard to the book before us, we need
only to refer to such men as Semler, Oeder, Corrodi, and their follow-
ers, for specimens (I had almost said) of every kind of ignominy and re-
proach respecting it; while, on the other hand, such men as Bossuet,
Herder, Eichhorn, and even Ewald and Liicke, unite, as we have seen,
in extolling the aesthetical beauties and merits of the Apocalypse. And
so the book has fared in regard to its alleged peculiar idioms and diction.
One class of critics has magnified and even exaggerated everything of
this sort, which can in any way be made plausible ; while another has
found no more departures from the Johannean style in the Gospel and
Epistles than the different nature of the subjects treated of, and the kind
of composition employed, would naturally demand. Where is the end
of all this? What arbiter possesses authority to step in and decide be-
tween the parties? Doubtless there is none, who can authoritatively
decide. Appeals to councils or popes, to archbishops or bishops, to
clergymen or laymen, on the ground of authority, one can no longer ex-
pect will be heard, even if they should be made. It is too late. No-
thing but the hard-earned fruits of study wrought into a convincing
shape of critical argumentation, can now bring this dispute to a close.
Even this, no one man, nor any one generation, can reasonably expect
to achieve. The subjects of examination are many of them so tenuous
and difficult, the judgment demanded in respect to them is so mice and
discriminating, the knowledge requisite to judge must be so extensive
and critical, that all which any man can expect now to do, is to make
some contribution toward bringing the subject to a close. At some fu-
ture period, I doubt not, the whole matter will be placed in such a posi-
tion, that critical impartiality and fairness cannot refuse their assent.
But such ground can be ultimately won, only by persevering efforts in
the study and criticism of the Apocalypse.

Considerations of this nature may serve to dampen the ardour of
some enthusiastic minds, who expect that they shall be able to make all
men see as they themselves do. Feeling no doubts, and perceiving no
good reason to doubt, they cannot understand how anything short of in-
fidel skepticism can take the liberty to differ from. them. I would not
disturb this happy confidence—happy if in the right. But, for myself,
I do not enter on that part of the discussion now before us, with any
overweening expectations. For reasons already stated, we see how in-
telligent and inquiring men may differ. This ditference in regard to
the Apocalypse has, as my examination has led me to believe, been

374 § 20. PRINCIPLES TO BE REGARDED

greatly augmented by personal feelings, and doctrinal viet and the
fashionable criticism of the day. Nor is this remark to be limited to
any one party. Some of the advocates of the Apocalypse have, at
times, employed but sorry reasoning in its defence. Moreover, it has
often been assailed with a spirit, which, acting consistently with itself,
would cover with midnight darkness the genuineness of every ancient
book. Let us try, in our course, to impinge neither upon Scylla nor
Charybdis. If all be not won, something perhaps may be gained; and
every step that is fairly taken in advance, brings us somewhat nearer the
desired goal.

Before proceeding to a particular examination of the internal phe-
nomena of the Apocalypse, and comparing its style and diction with
those of John’s other books, it is proper to make some general remarks
on the principles by which our judgment ought to be guided on this oc-
casion. Ido not expect to advance any positions which are new and
strange, and thus to appeal to the credulity rather than to the under-
standing of the.reader. But it is proper to place before him some land-
marks by which I shall endeavour to steer my course, in order that he
may see whether a safe and judicious course is taken to arrive at the
end proposed.

§ 20. Principles to be regarded in judging of the style and diction of the

; Apocalypse.

(1) It is now agreed on all hands, among intelligent crities, that the
Apocalypse, as has more than once been said, is essentially A BOOK OF
PROPHETIC POETRY. Nearly all the prophecy of the Old Testament
is Hebrew poetry ; and even that which is not strictly so, retains much
of the spirit, manner, and diction of poetry. The Hebrew has even a
kind of poetic dialect; i.e. there are some words, forms of speech,
forms of suffix pronouns, constructions after verbs, uses of the article;
and other like things, which are appropriate and peculiar to the poetic
dialect. Besides this, the whole circle of imagery, trope, symbol, im-
passioned language, breviloquence, ellipsis, and the like, is widely dif-
ferent in poetry from that of common prose. No experienced reader
needs one word for proof of these propositions. They are as true also
of the Greek, Latin, and English poetry, as they are of the Hebrew.
Gray in his Pindaric Odes, in his Elegy on a Country Church-yard,
and in his familiar Letters, is scarcely the same man. Of course the
like is true, in a good degree, of Pope, or Dryden, or Thompson, or
Akenside, or any other distinguished man. Some differ much more
from themselves in prose, when they write poetry, than others do. No
exact limits can be assigned to a thing of this nature. But it must be

IN JUDGING OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 375.

true, sollte the higher walks of poetry, the imaginative, the symbolic,
the exhibition of pictwres before the reader rather than descriptions of
things, must always make a decided difference between this and prose,
both in the circle of language and of thought. We should call a writer
of poetry very unskilful and inept, should this fail to be the case.

» If now the author of the Apocalypse be the same man who wrote the
Gospel and Epistles, he had at least an entirely different task to per-
form in these two cases. The first is prediction, poetic description of
the future by means of continual symbols, or prophetic visions in which
all disclosure is made by symbol. The latter books are didactic dis-
courses, dialogistic controversy, simple historical narrative, and simple
practical exhortations to love and harmony and piety, with warnings
against the spirit of error which was beginning to develope itself. The
latter, too, were written when no fiery persecution was going on, no
peril of life and liberty and property was instant. But the Apocalypse
was written in the very furnace of affliction, heated beyond its usual in-
tensity. _Everything—the personal state of the writer, his relations,
his solicitudes, his object in writing, were all of a different tenor from
those in the Gospel and Epistles.

In a writer of any skill, power, and compass of mind, who possesses
any good degree of versatility or choice of expression, there must of
necessity be some striking discrepancies as to manner, on occasions so
very different. It is not merely just to allow it, but in a man of such
sympathies as John possessed, inclined to the doctrinal, the speculative,
the affectionate, the highly sympathetic, we should of course expect that
such differences must take place. Qualities such as these cannot be
denied to the author of the Gospel and Epistles; and why may they
not have developed themselves in the way in which they appear in the
Apocalypse? It is only on the ground that John is supposed to have
been incapable of forming but one mold for his productions, that the
power of writing the Apocalypse can be denied him.

(2) It seems altogether probable, or indeed quite certain, from inter-
nal evidence, that the Apocalypse was written soon after John left
Palestine and went to Ephesus. Liicke supposes a ten years’ residence
of John in Asia, before the Apocalypse was written, p. 364. But the
notices which we have of him show, that he did not act as a missionary
abroad, until near the time when Jerusalem was destroyed; see Dane-
mann, Verfasser der Offenb. p. 3 seq. 1841. When the Apocalypse
was written, in A. D. 68 or 69, he was then still fresh in the Hebrew
idiom. He was deeply conversant with the Hebrew prophets. This
must be true of the man who wrote the Apocalypse ; and it is altogether
probable that John was at all events a man of this cast. The models
of the Apocalypse are all to be found in the Old Testament. Many

376 § 20. PRINCIPLES TO BE REGARDED

things in Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and some others, reappear
in some respects, but still cast into a new form, in this book. How
could the idiom be otherwise than strongly Hebraistic? And if John
had recently gone to Ephesus, the Greek which he as yet spoke or
wrote, must be altogether of the Hebraistic cast. I say this, because I
cannot bring myself to doubt, that he did speak this language in Pales-
tine. It must be such of course, as he had learned and spoken in that
country. Some ten or twelve years after this, when he wrote his
Gospel and Epistles, what wonder that he should have: attained to a
style in many respects discrepant from that of the Apocalypse? And
more especially so, since those productions were of a tenor so entirely
different from that.of the Apocalypse. John was doubtless an apt and
ready learner ; and a few years’ residence among those who used Greek
in all their oral'communications and books, must have made a very sen-
sible difference in his circle of Greek words and his facility of employ-
ing them. Specially must this be true of the particles, i.e. the prepo-
sitions and conjunctions, which, in the Greek, are the nicest and most
difficult part of all the language, and the very last thing to which, in all
their tenuous and distinctive relations, a foreigner ever attains. Ac-
cordingly, the most striking peculiarities of the Apocalypse have relation
to. these. It is but fair, in judging of the idioms of this book, that a
matter like this should be fully taken into the account.

(3) More distinctly than has yet been done, should the difference of
subjects treated of in the Apocalypse be brought into view. It is not
merely the poetry of this book, with its concomitant tropes and sym-
bols, and glances into the invisible world, and machinery of angels and
devils and terrific monsters, and the like, which differs from the prose
of the Gospel and Epistles, but the subjects themselves which are de-
signed to be presented in the Apocalypse, the great contest between all
that is good and all that is evil, the various efforts of the struggling
parties alternately successful and unsuccessful for a season, the symboli-
co-historic picture as it were of this contest down to the time of the
final and complete victory of the church, the grounds of encouragement
and triumph to the bleeding martyrs in view of this—these and the like
make such a wide discrepancy between the Apocalypse and the didactic
and the hortative in the Gospel and Epistles of John, that one can
hardly place these books side by side, with the expectation of finding
anything more than general traits of similarity, where the nature of the
case and the subjects treated of will permit.

(4) It is agreed on all hands, that the New Testament exhibits a He-
brew-Greek style throughout. From what has already been stated re-
specting John and the time when the Apocalypse was written, it is alto-
gether to be expected that the Apocalypse will strongly develope this,

IN JUDGING OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 377

It is enouth to show that the idioms of the Apocalypse are Hellenistic,
to render it possible or probable that they may have been employed by
John the apostle. How can we demand that such a writer should run
all his expressions, in respect to matters so discrepant, in one and the
same mold? It is enough, then, to show of any word, or expression,
or construction in syntax, that it is of the Hebrew-Greek ; or, at all
events, to show that it is not an unusual one in this idiom. I do not.in-
deed mean to aver, that there might not be some modes of expression,
even in this, so foreign to the idiom of John in his Gospel, as to afford
satisfactory proof of authorship not apostolic in respect to the Apoca-
lypse. But what I would say is, that cases of this nature must be clear-
ly marked, and placed in a strong light so as to be prominent and strik-
ing, before we can decide by virtue of them against the current testimo-
ny of ecclesiastical antiquity.

§ 21. Particular examination of objections drawn from the style,
diction, etc., of the Apocalypse.

I. Words and phrases in John, but not in the Apocalypse.

Before I proceed to notice these in detail, it is proper to remark, that
Ewald, Liicke, Schott, Bretschneider, and Credner,* are the writers
whom I have in view; and among these, Liicke is the principal one,
because his work, if not the most recent of all, is the most extensive and
able. Most of the objections and difficulties to be canvassed are com-
mon to all these writers, and are crowded by them into a small compass.
I do not deem it worth the trouble to assign the specific passage and
author from which each and every objection advanced is taken. Most
of them are the same in all the writers named; and all of them may be
easily and readily found by any reader who wishes to find them. I
merely reserve the right of occasionally designating something that is
peculiar or specially important, by referring it distinctly to the source
from which it comes.

(1) ‘The Gospel and Epistle of John not unfrequently employ the
genuine Greek particles wavzore, zwmore, ovdenote, ovdénw, while they
are wholly omitted in the Apocalypse.’

This statement is far from being precise in some of its aspects. E. g.
(a) mévroze is not frequent in any New Testament writer but Paul.
Matthew and Mark exhibit it only twice respectively, and both in the
same sentence as spoken hy Christ, Matt. 26: 11. Mark 14:7. Luke

* Ewald, Comm. in Apoc. § 9. Litcke, Einleit. ete. § 38 seq. Schott, [sagoge,
§ 116. Bretschneider, Probabilid, ete. § 28 seq. Credner, Einleit. in das N. Test,
§ 266.

VOL. I. 48

878 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

¥

but twice in his Gospel, and not at all in the Acts. John employs it
seven times in his Gospel, but not once in his Epistle.* The probable
reason why it was not used in the Apocalypse, seems to be, that it was
not needed. ‘The same is true of the Acts, and Ist John; which are
not spurious because naytote is wanting. (6) nwmore is rare even in
the classics, except after a negative particle. It is almost an entire
stranger to the New Testament. Luke employs it once; John, four
times in his Gospel, and once in his Epistle. This is all; and of course
nothing can be made of this. (¢) Ovdézoze is employed by John in his
Gospel and Epistle but once (Gosp. 7: 46), and plainly is far enough
from being a favourite particle in the New Testament Greek. Paul
uses it once, or if we include the Epistle to the Hebrews, only three
times. The classical writers employ it principally for the never of the
_ past. The Apocalyptist has no occasion for this ; and the never of the
future he makes by the ovx ézi so common in the New Testament Greek,
because it corresponds well with the Hebrew 1:2 85>. See in Apoc.
10: 6. 18: 14—-23. 21: 1—4 al., and in Gosp. 14: 30. 16: 10, 21, 25.
17: 11. 21: 6 al. \ Yet the Epistle of John does not exhibit it. Noth-
ing can be argued for or against the genuineness of a book, in reference
to ovdézoze thus conditioned. (d) ovdézm is almost a total stranger to
the New Testament; John’s Gospel thrice, Paul once, Luke once.
This is the never of the past, and the Apocalyptist has no occasion for it.
(2) ‘ Kae is frequent in the Gospel and Epistle, but not employed
at all in the Apocalypse.’—This is true, and somewhat striking. Yet
among the most Hebraizing writers, I observe that xaOog¢ is quite un-
frequent; e. g. Matt. three times, Mark seven; even Luke makes but a
moderate use of it, specially in the Acts. The particle we, (differing
little if any from xaog¢ in most cases), corresponds more nearly and
simply with the Hebrew jz, >; and so it is used, times almost without
number, in every part of the New Testament, and everywhere in the
Apocalypse, where the sense of as, in like manner as, etc., is required.
The later use of zxa@o¢ by John, in his Gospel and Epistle, shows a
habit, when he wrote these, of employing the rounder and fuller ex-
pression instead of the simple #¢; which one may easily suppose to
have been acquired by longer usage in Greek. The difference in usage
I have acknowledged to be striking, and one naturally adapted to excite
inquiry or doubt; but it is not characteristic enough, nor important

* The reader is desired to take notice, that in the inquiry about style and dic-
tion, most writers have of late omitted to take into view the 2d and 3d of John ;
and so I shall do here, for they are sa brief, that they cannot affect the main re-
sult. The first Epistle was, in ancient times, almost universally acknowledged
as John’s; and so we may the more readily refer to it in this discussion about the
genuineness of another Johannean writing.

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 379

enough, to decide the great question before us, or even to afford much ‘
aid for this purpose. Kadwes yéyoumzat is used some thirteen times in
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans; and only some three or four times else-
where in all his writings. Kado is not in 2 Tim., Tit., Philem.,
James, Jude. In 1 Tim. and 1, Pet. _ only once each; in 2 hess, twice.
It is impossible to put dependence on a matter like this, when we and
“xadog may be in most cases indifferently employed; in others, the lat-
ter is more appropriate in ratiocination, and so might the more easily be
chosen in the Gospel of John.

(8) ©Q¢ in the sense of when is frequent in the Gospel, but not in
the Apocalypse.’—The fact must be’admitted. Yet it is less striking
and conclusive, than it at first appears to be. John employs it not in
the sense of when in his Epistle. Paul uses it in this sense in some
Epistles, but not at all in others. Matthew and: Mark, the Hebraizing
evangelists, never employ we in the sense of when. In the Apocalypse,
there is scarcely eccasion to express this idea; and when there is, there
are so many ways of doing it, by participles with such an adsignifica-
tion, and other various modes of expression, that nothing special can be
made out of it. It seems quite probable, as in the case of Matthew and
Mark, that the Hebraistic style did not early and easily adopt this se-
condary sense of we.

. (4) ‘Mer and pwévror are wanting in the Apocalypse. John employs
them both.’—Yet Liicke is candid enough to say (p. 365), that ‘these
particles are in their nature so syntactical, that, in a composition like the
Apocalypse they might be wanting, even if John was the author.’ This
is the more eredible, in fact, since John, in all his Gospel, has ué» but
thrice, and net at all in his Epistle. As to wérzor, it is found five times
in John’s Gospel, but not in his Epistle, nor but thrice more in all the
New Testament. However common pév may be elsewhere, to John it
is a kind of stranger; and pévzoe is so to the New Testament Greek in
general.

(5) * The comjunetive and transitive particles dé, ov», te, yao, are very
unfrequent in the Apocalypse, although common in John.’—For the
full discussion of this matter, and the peculiar use of xaé in the room of
some of them, the reader is referred back to § 15, p. 250 seq.. All of
them excepting ze appear in the Apocalypse, so that the writer was not
a stranger to them. But the use of %ol, in a manner like that of the
Proteus ‘ of the Hebrews (as it has been called), in the strongly He-
braizing style of the Apocalypse, has rendered the use of the other con-
junctives and transitives unfrequent ; ; see ib.

(6) ‘The Gospel and Epistle are rich in antithetic parallels, gene-
rally united by «Ada; but the Apocalypse has them not, at least in this
form.’ —And why? - Plainly because it is not ratiocinative and didactic,

380 § 2). ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

like those books. Yet did is no stranger in the Apocalypse ; see 2: 4,
6, 9, 14, 20. 8: 9. 9:5. 10:7, 9. 17: 12. 20: 6. In the epistles to the
churches, which approach nearer the other works of John in their tenor,
we have in proportion as frequent use of aia as in John elsewhere.
And as to the kind of antithesis to which Liicke refers as being want-
ing, see in 2:9. 3: 9. 9:5. 10:7. 20: 6a full proportion of cases. Be-
sides, &i2é is not very frequent in the Epistle of John. Nothing im-
portant can be made of this. ' .

(7) ‘In John, Pecopet and Psmgéw are favourite words of John, for
seeing, while the Apocalypse employs dodw and Biénw,’—A part of this
statement is quite aside from the fact. John employs ogé@, (mostly in
the Perf.) some twenty-seven times; the Apocalypse only three. Again
John employs £2é7 sixteen times, and the Apocalypse the same num-
ber. These two verbs, then, are common ground altogether. As to
Secouct, John uses it only ten times in the Gospel and Epistle, im all
which cases it implies a continued inspection and contemplation. It is
not in the Apocalypse. And as to dewp¢e, it is somewhat frequent in
the Gospel, but occurs only once in the Epistle. It occurs, moreover, in
Apoc. 11: 11,12. The only one of these verbs then about which any-
thing can be said to our present purpose is @ecouct. In the Apoca-
lypse the writer had his choice between this verb and Biézw. The
latter means to direct one’s vision toward anything, and is more appro-
priate, in the designation of such rapidly passing visions, than Oecowes
would be, employed as John elsewhere employs it. As to the favourite
édpaxe. of John, in his Gospel, the use of the Perfect tense, which car-
ries along with it the idea of an abiding action, would be inappropriate
to the apocalyptic visions. The common Preterite of the Apocalyptist
is etSov, when he describes the perception of a vision or spectacle that
had passed before his view,—an appropriate word. And in his Gospel,
John employs the same word in the like sense immeasurably oftener
than any other verb, or than all other verbs, of seeing. Amid such a
variety as the Greek language furnishes, why should it be deemed
strange, that sconce is omitted in the Apocalypse? Liicke remarks,
as a peculiarity of the Apocalypse, that efdor (4: 1) is used without an
object after it: But is there not the same usage in Gosp. 1: 40? Be-
sides in 4: 1, it is plainly = man) x45, which is so common a phrase of
transition in Hebrew.

It is unnecessary to say more.

(8) ‘Eoyoleotou in Rev. 18: 17 has an entirely different sense from
that in John.’—But this is not a well grounded objection. This verb
may be used, and is used, either absolutely or with an Accusative. In
the Gospel 6: 27, 28. 9: 4, (and frequently elsewhere), the Accusative ,
stands after it, as in Rev. 18:17. And as to the meaning here—is it
not familiar and good Greek usage to say, éeyaleoOar yjy—Oudacour,

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 881i

and the like? And what is there singular in it, that John should em-
ploy so familiar an expression ?

(9) The objection from éyuera, in Rev. 17: 17, viz. that John no
where employs the plural of this word, is rendered nugatory by the re+
moval of the reading ; which now is oi 16you.

(10) ‘Margo is used in the Gospel more than twelve times; only
once in the Apocalypse ; Licke p. 367.—Ans. Just twelve times in
the Gospel; and in nearly every case it means to call by name in order
to summon one’s attention. In the Gospel, John has frequent occasion
for this meaning; in the Apocalypse he has not. In 14: 18 it occurs in
its original sense, to make a sound; in the like sense, Gosp. 13: 38.
18: 27. It is not to be found in the Epistle.

(11) ‘Méve is frequent in John, and but once (17: 10) in the Apoca-
lypse.’—Ans. This is true; but it is enough to say, that John has not
occasion for the verb in the Apocalypse, and therefore does not employ
it. In the Gospel and Epistle it is employed in nearly all cases to de-
signate the abiding influence of the Spirit in Christians, or the persever-
ance of Christians in love and faith. The different sense which Liicke
assigns to wetyos in Apoc. 17: 10, I do not perceive. Is not the sense
of abiding, or continwing, common to John’s Gospel and Epistle, and is
‘not the same the sense. of peivas in Rev. 17: 10?

(12) “Ep eiven and eiven & ci are frequent in John; but not in the
Apocalypse.’ —Ans. This is true of the latter expression; the former
occurs but a few times. ‘These are formulas of expression which are
employed in the discussion of spiritual unity=the unity of God and
Christ, the union of Christ and his’ disciples, or of the disciples with
each other. The éy zws may be well compared with the é» xveiq@ so
common in Paul. The tenor of the. Apocalypse does not lead to the
employment of such abstract expressions. Still, comp. éy avevuete in
Rey. 4: 2. 21: 10, and éy xvoim 14:13. This last is of the same nature
as those above.

(13) ‘ Ady dog and sagonoia are common in John; but not in the
Apocalypse. Ans. aio appears but once in the Epistle, and not at
all in the Apocalypse. In the Gospel eleven times. It is a word of
asseveration in grave reasoning and declarations, and can be expected
only in oratorical and didactic discourse. As to wa¢dyoia, I do not see
where, in the Apocalypse, there was any place for it, in the sense which
John attaches to it; or if there is, why should a writer be limited to the
choice of only one mode of expression ?

(14) Schott alleges that ‘vwotodas and dokalecda, applied to
Christ glorified, are wanting in the Apocalypse.’—Ans. The former
verb is used by John only in his Gospel; and there it is applied only
to Christ elevated on the cross; and even this phraseology seems to

382 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

have come from a comparison with the lifting wp of the serpent in the
wilderness; see 3: 14. 8: 28. 12: 32, 34. The Apocalypse has no oc-
casion for this. Asto d0&¢lec0at in John’s Gospel, in all that is pe-
culiar it is applied to the future glorification of Christ, and is employed
principally by Christ himself in reference to that event as a confirma-
tion and consummation of his Messiahship. The Apocalypse every-
where exhibits Jesus in the attitude of having already attained this
‘station, and as acting in it. The state itself, in comparison with his
humiliation, is not the subject of discussion, but only of occasional, re-
ference, as Rev. 1:18. AoSalw is no stranger to the Apocalypse, in its
usual sense; 15: 4. 18: 7. But both the verbs in question are wanting
in the Epistle of John. Is that any argument against its genuineness ?

(15), ‘Such words as Co awmog, pos, oxoria, adn Fev, 0009, DvQa,
applied to Christian doctrine and to Christ himself, do not occur in the
Apocalypse.—Ans. This is true for the most part; but the ready an-
swer is, that no discussions of such a kind as would call for these terms,
employed in this way, occur in the Apocalypse. For «iw»or the writer
employs the stronger eg tote aiavas toy aidver ; but evayyéhioy aio-
yoy occurs in 14: 6. The Epistle of John has no Cay aisdxog, although
it is very frequent in his Gospel. The use of 04d¢, as applied to Christ
in the Gospel, is purely accidental and occasional, and happens but
once, 14; 4—6. To the figurative and Hebraistic sense of the word,
the Apocalypse is no stranger, 15: 3. So of 9vga, as applied to Christ
figuratively ; there is merely one passage, viz. Gosp. 10: 1—7. It
occurs not in the Epistle. Nothing can be made out of these words,
thus occasionally employed, and merely so.

(16) ‘Andddvus is frequent in John; but not in the Apocalypse’—
Ans. The Apocalypse has another mode, a more poetical one, of de-
" signating future misery, viz. the lake of fire and brimstone. And John
himself does not seem to have had any partiality for the word in ques-
tion, as it does not occur in his Epistle. In the Gospel it belongs to the
Saviour’s discourses, and was somewhat often employed by him.

(17) ‘The apocalyptic names of the evil spirit are 6 Dezravae, 6
dwéBoloc, or 6 dedxwr 6 usyag, and the like; while the Gospel has
HOYOY TOU xOcuOV, 0 moPNOdS, etc.’—Ans. AveBoiog is in the Apoca-
lypse five times, in the Gospel and Epistle seven. azarae is in the
Gosp. 13: 27: in the Apocalypse oftener because of the Hebrew idiom.
_ As to movnocs for Satan, it is not once used in the Gospel; and it might
well be omitted in the Apocalypse, which, from the nature of the book,
has so many figurative names for Satan. As to 6 “oyar tod xoGmoV,
it occurs three times in the last address of Jesus to his disciples, and
belongs only to him ; neither the Epistle nor the Apocalypse has it. ‘O
docxew is plainly a poetic Hebraistic appellation.

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 383

(18) ‘ Koouog in the sense of wicked men, so common in John, and
sometimes with other nouns combined, such as “eyay tov xdopov, ow-
zg TOV xoGuov, etc., does not appear in the Apocalypse.’—Ans. As to
coxa, etc., see above ; cwz7jo rod xocpov occurs only in the Gosp. 4:
42, and then it is the language of the Samaritan woman. In respect to
nbomos, the world of men, specially the world of wicked or sinful men,
the Apocalypse does not employ it. I] is the word for proper world,
and occasionally oizovucry. But the designations of the wicked are
selected in such a way as best to accord with the nature of the scenic
representations of the book, viz. such as r@ &bry, of meocuvvovrtes 70
Inoior, and the like, with cdmozor, moovor, eidmdodaroa, ete. ; all in
better harmony with the vivid representations here. The xdomog of
John is not peculiar to him alone. Paul. employs the word in the; like
sense. But still, it is a peculiar favourite of the Gospel and Epistle of
John.

(19) «Such expressions as 70 mredua tig adn Ielas, 0 mHQadxANTOS, 6
apziyoustos, 0 Wevorys, 0 miévos, are foreign to the Apocalypse, and
familiar to John.’-—Ans. As to the first, no passage occurs in the Apoca-
lypse apposite to the introduction of it. ‘O magazdntog, in its peculiar
sense, is found only in the Gospel; for in the Epistle 2: 1 it has a dif-
ferent meaning. ‘O dvziyeiczog is found only m the Epistle; and o
micévog neither in the Gospel, Epistle, or Apocalypse, but only 2 John
v. 7. Wevdog is common to the Epistle.and Apocalypse ; weudeis
occurs twice in the Apocalypse in the like sense with wevorys. Why
should the same form of a word be always adopted by a writer ?

(20) “EoysoD at sig cov xdouor, yerrn divas éx Oeov, téxva Tov Yeot,
move THY adj Oeer, and mozEvEw, are common to John, and wanting
in the Apocalypse.—Ans. In nearly every case in which égoyeoOut sig
tov xoomor is found in the Gospel or Epistle, it relates to Christ’s first
advent and incarnation; a subject not treated of in the Apocalypse.
As to yerynDjras éx Seov, it occurs but once in the Gospel; and it be-
longs to a subject not treated of inthe Apocalypse. 7'kxva Oeov occurs
only twice in the Gospel, in connection with the preceding phraseology.
In alike manner is réxva employed in the Apoe. 2: 23, i. e. in a figu-
rative or tropical sense. ~‘As to zovsiy tiv cy evar, it occurs but once
in the Gospel and once in the Epistle. But mozevew is everywhere to
be found in the Gospel and Epistle, but not in the Apocalypse. The
obvious reason is, that the Gospel was written in order to persuade men
to believe ; and the Epistle to guard them against deceivers and to con-
firm their belief.. The Apocalypse treats of Christians amidst the fires
of persecution; and instead of a simple discussion of faith or belief, it
uses, in reference to continued fidelity, the tropical language of conquer-
ing, abiding steadfast, following the Lamb, coming out of tribulation,

384 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

cleansing the garments of saints in the blood of the Lamb. A variety
of other poetical diction, also, adapted to the tenor of the book, is em-
ployed throughout. eal es

(21) ‘John uses ids, but the Apocalypse idov.—Ans. The latter
occurs five times in the Gospel. Both ide and id0v are common to
Hellenistic Greek ; while (Sov = 725, has immeasurably the preference
in usage. It is more Hebraistic; which of course agrees with the
genius of the Apocalypse. Moreover, éoxov xo ie is in the Apoe. 6:
1, 3, 5, 7, (just as in Gosp. 1: 40, 47), according to the text of Gries-.
bach and Scholz. If admitted, it makes out a striking parallel. :

(22) ‘Ildlw and tegécoew are common to the Gospel and Epistle,
but not to the Apocalypse.’—Ans. Idédw is no stranger to the Apoca-.
lypse; see 10: 8,11. It is not employed oftener because it is not
needed. As to taoéccm, it is not found in the Epistle, nor in. the
Apocalypse; and plainly because it is not needed. The Apocalypse
employs: more vivid language to describe agitations, griefs, and torments,
such as Bacavilo, xaraxavoucnt, Eogudw, Suapisiow, amoxteivo, and the
like.

(23) ‘ Phrases such as elvan & tov Oeov —éx tov diaBoLov — &x cov
xocwov, belong to John, and not to the Apocalypse.’ Bretsch.—Ans. If
the writer means that & is not employed in the Apocalypse to desig-
nate the relation of belonging or appertaining to, associated with, and
the like, he is greatly mistaken; see in Rey. 5: 5,9. 7: 4——9 (fourteen
times), 11: 9. 17: 1,11. 22: 21 al. Such a use is familiar even. But
if Bretschneider means that these particular formulae or combinations
of words are not employed in the Apocalypse, that may be eonceded
without any advantage to the cause which he advocates, Why should
a writer always repeat the same forms of words and ideas, specially
when his subjects are exceedingly diverse? . And when Bretschneider
adds to this list the phrase eivas ovr Xovot@ as peculiar to John, and
wanting in the Apocalypse, I know not where to find it. -John uses
ovv but twice in the Gospel and Epistle; and then, not as here. stated.

(24) «In the Apocalypse we have wagzvgeiv with the Accusative after
it; in John, it is followed by eod zwog and sometimes tw; Bretsch. -
—Ans. In the Gospel and Epistle we have the. construction with the
Accusative after this verb; e. g. Gosp. 8: 32. 5: 32. 19:35. Epis. 1: 2.
5: 10. For the rest, the Apocalypse employs the verb but three times,
and then only with a direct object, which of course is the Accusative.
The Dative after. waezveda is very rare, e, g. 5: 33. 18: 37, and then is
a Dativus commodi.

(25) ‘When pagzveia has.a Genitive after it, such as 0200, youotov,
etc., it is always a Genitive auctoris in the Gospel and Epistle; in the
Apocalypse, the Genitive designates the object of testimony.’ So Bret-

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 385

schneider, who refers for proof to Apoc. 6: 9. 12:11, 17. 19: 10, and
1: 9.—But in 6: 9 there is no such formula. In 12: 11, avdzov is Geni-
tive of agent or author instead of object. So in 12: 17 in respect to
Inoov; comp. Meov in the preceding clause. In 19: 10 the same is the
case; and in 1: 9 it is also the same, comp. @<ov in the preceding clause.
Surely this objection does not well accord with Probabilia, the title of
Bretschneider’s book.

(26) “’Exeivog is very common in John; but it is scarcely employed
in the Apocalypse.’ Ewald, p. 67.—Ans. This is so; but this is easily
accounted for. The Hebrew xin = avz0¢ and ovz0¢, but not éxeivog.
Hence the Septuagint have not employed the latter more than three or
four times. So with the Hebraizing style of the Apocalypse. Yet in
Rey. 9: 6. 11: 13. 16: 14, éxetvog is employed ; showing that the writer
was no stranger to the word.

(27) «The Gospel uses Jyoocddvwa; the Apocalypse Ijeovoadnu?
Ewald.—Ans. Both forms are common to the New Testament; e. ¢
Luke employs both interchangeably and very often. . The form in the
Apocalypse is more Hebraistic, and occurs only three times.

(28) ‘ Azove with the Genitive after it is usual in the Gospel, but
not to be found in the Apocalypse.’ Ewald, p. 70.—Ans. This is a great
mistake; see Genitive after éxovw in Apoc. 6:1, 3, 5. 14: 13. 16:1,
5, 7. 21: 3. On the other hand, the Accusative after this verb is no
stranger to John; e. g. Gosp. 3: 8. 5: 24. 7: 40. 8: 26, 40, 43, 47. 14:
24 al. Both books in common admit both constructions, and nearly in
a like proportion.

(29) ‘Composite verbs are much more frequent in John, than in the
Apocalypse; Ewald, p. 67.—Ans. I have been through the whole
Greek Concordance, in order to see whether this is correct, and find it
to be so far from being so, that even the contrary position, viz. that the
Apocalypse makes the more frequent use of them, is nearer the truth.
E. g. (1) Verbs common to both; an0dTELM, aVAYIWOOXO, EXxEYTEO,
EMLOTOLPO, ExTOQEVM, MEQIMATEM, EMOXTEIPO, GvITEI/BM, MEQIBALLW, T000-
HVE, eSeoyopees zucrapuiver, ouBovievor, siodgrouct, avapairo, xaOn-
oct, cer o[scety noc cyo, pri aginus, xatnyooa, curayo, amo-
ynouw, Inayo, exyéo, ExiztOnuu.. In many of these cases, some of these
verbs are very frequent respectively in one bod, and not in the other;
and this about in equal proportion. If there be any difference, it seems
rather to be in favour of greater frequency in the Apocalypse. But (2)
The Apocalypse has a large class. of such words, not found in the Gos-
pel or Epistle; e. g. érdve, megiCesvvynt, + KOTOINEO, METHVOED, Salesian,
eyygio, init &x0inko, KVOTAVO, démoycogtComce, Hor ecnoLion,
Siapdeign, enidupsen, érdva, meoilavrup, amopeow, suyxoworéen, cno-
Sido, exvyoapw, émiziOnu. (3) On the other hand, in the Gospel

VOL. I. 49

386 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

and Epistle, are dvayyé).10, mopehapplve, uve groct, énipadioo, —
Laupcreo, éEnynopot, amtouglvouo, amayyEhho, KUTEYO), UETHBMIVOD, ov or
ninto, avictrnut. On the whole, the composite verbs are more predoms-
nant in the Apocalypse ; and specially so if it be compared with the
Epistle. So much for assertions made at hazard, and without investi-
gation. pores
(30) ‘John frequently employs the simple ei, which is never used in
the Apocalypse ;’ Credner, p. 730.—Ans. The simple e in conditional
propositions is indeed wanting in the Apocalypse; but so are the sim-
ple conditional propositions. Such an ¢ belongs to didactic argumenta-
tion. But e¢ 62 aa} may be found in 2: 5, 16; ef 7 in six places;
zig in seven more; and édy pj = & ay wy, and é@y = ei a, in eight
more.

Such is the list of words and phrases found, as is alleged, in John
but not in the Apocalypse. That some of the instances of discrepancy
alleged are striking, Ino not feel disposed to deny. | If they were found
in writings attributed to the same author, when writing on the same or
on nearly related subjects, they would certainly throw serious difficulties
in the way of maintaining sameness of authorship. As it is, while I
feel the full force of the allegations made respecting them, I cannot
think a conclusion can be safely drawn from them against the apostolic
origin of the Apocalypse.. We shall see, in the sequel, that there is no
considerable epistle of Paul, which by.a like process may not be wrested
from him ; e. g. the first Epistle to the Corinthians. We shall also see,
that while there are so many discrepances of diction and phraseology
between John’s Gospel and Epistle and the Apocalypse, and even more
which are to be added in the following section, yet there are also points
of resemblance so numerous, that we could scarcely expect more, con-
sidering the peculiar nature of the book before us.

II. Words, phrases, etc., in the Apocalypse, but not in John.

(31) ‘John employs no such titles as 77 ayy ts uttoews Tov Beod,
MOWTOTOUOS TAY YExodd”, 0 KQYor TOY Bacikea” THE yijs, in respect to
Christ. These are peculiar to the Apocalypse’—Ans. The two first of
these occur but once. Should we argue that the epistle to the Colos-
sians is not Paul’s, because in it he calls Christ eixoy zod Seod cov
cogdérou (1: 15), which he nowhere else employs? As to doyan, ete.,
the very phraseology is Johannean. Does not John employ aoyor too
xdomov several times to designate Satan, the prince of evil? And
might he not use eyo» in the Apocalypse, in a different connection, to
denote the supreme ruler over all?

(82) ‘ Otxovpéry is used only in the Apocalypse.’—Ans. True; and
it is scarcely to be found in the New Testament, excepting in Luke’s

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 387

writings. But the very fact of its unfrequency, while it is still quite
easily accounted for, makes it not at. all inapposite for the Apocalypse.
Why should peculiar diction be denied to sucha book? Yet even here,
it is found but three times. Paul employs it in his Epistle to the Ro-
mans; but not elsewhere. Can any critical argument be built upon this,
against his other epistles ?

(83) <“Eysw ray pagrvoiar, dxomory, MOyos tis Uxouor7ys, belong only
to the Apocalypse.’—Ans. The first of these expressions is used in
Rey. 6: 9. 12: 17. 19: 10, respecting the martyrs who held fast the truth
of the Gospel. And this and the other expressions are all. peculiarly
appropriate to the subject matter of the Apocalypse, and therefore are
of course employed. . The last expression occurs but once.

(84) ‘Koacsivy env dWayyv—to dvowa, are not found in John.’—Ans.
Nor in the Apocalypse, save in one passage, 2: 13—15; which are the
words of Christ. But didayy Oe0v—zguorov, is common in John. The
phraseology savours of his usage.

(385) ‘The Apocalypse exhibits.0 O20 0 zartoxpatae, and 0 xvewos
0 G80¢ 6 martoxoatwg; which John has not.’—Ans. These are mere
transcripts of the Hebrew appellations "115 5x, minay ">x mint. They
are altogether in place, in the Apocalypse. And when Licke here re-
marks, that @sd¢ xai mazyzo (1: 6) is like Paul’s usage, and not like
John’s which omits the xa/, he appeals only to 2 John v. 3 for proof of
the latter. . How can anything be made of this? Paul himself in
Gal..1: 1 omits xai in this connection, and in 1: 3 cnserts it. And when
Bretschneider alleges, that the Alpha and Omega of the ocalypse is
nowhere else found, it is enough to say, that this is purely Hebraistic,
and.is merely a figurative manner of expres#*. jmN) joN1. Are
the designations of the Godhead in 1 Tim.’ / found anywhere else
in Paul, or indeed in the New Testament?

(36) ‘ AdgOwog in the Apocalypse means faithful ; in John it means
only true, genuine, in opposition to false or pretended.’ —Ans. But what
else except faithful, veracious, can cdyPwog in Gosp. 7: 28 mean ; and
specially in 19: 35, which is clear? In the Apocalypse the word an-
swers to the Hebrew 7282; and as God is so often appealed to as keep-

ing his promises, faithful or veracious is a peculiarly appropriate mean-
ing. Besides, the very application of the word to God is Johannean
exclusively, and the argument lies in favour of the apostolic origin of
the Apocalypse, rather than against it, by reason of this adjective so
employed.

(37) ‘Toyved¢ is common in the Apocalypse, but not in John.’—Ans.
It is found in 1 John 2: 14. Elsewhere John has no occasion to char-
acterize personal might. In the Apocalypse it is applied to God, and
to angels, for such a purpose; like the Hebrew "2x, validus.

388 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

(38) ‘The Evangelist loves the historic Present; to the Apocalypse
this is foreign? Liicke p. 366.—Ans. There is no good foundation for
this criticism. I have looked the Gospel and Apocalypse both care-
fully through, in order to see whether this is correct. I find one hun-
dred cases of ji'storic Present in the Gospel and forty in the Apoca-
lypse. Of the one hundred, at least some sixty-five belong merely to
the word i¢yer constantly occuring in dialogistic representation, and
scarcely employed in such representation in a praeterite way ; and most
of the other remaining thirty-five cases belong to égoyeza, or some like
verb of motion. Making due allowance for this, there is no difference
worthy of notice between the two books, in regard to this matter. Be-
sides, the Epistle has scarcely a specimen of this idiom ; and for an ob-
vious reason. See the remarks in § 15 p. 239 seq. above; where the
subject is more fully discussed.

(89) ‘The Gospel often begins sentences without a copula, either by
the historic Present or the Praeterite; the Apocalypse has not a trace
of such a usage ;’ Liicke ut. sup.— Ans. The usage in question is in-
deed very common in the Gospel and Epistle. Yet if the reader will
open the Apocalypse, and read the first three chapters’ whose subject-
matter approaches nearer than the rest of the book to the writings just
named, he will find the asyndiec construction of sentences as frequent as
in John. It may be found elsewhere also; e. g. Apoc. 11: 4, 6. 17:8,
10, 13, 14 al. In respect to the visions of the book, the use of xaé is
very striking as to conformity with the Hebrew. © But on this subject
I have already remarked; see § 15 p. 250 seq. above.

(40) ‘In the Apocalypse the peculiar idiom of odzog .. . tye does not
occur, which is so frequent in the Gospel and Epistle.’ Liicke, p. 366.—
Ans. Including «vz7, ovzo1, covz0, tavta, with iva after them, one finds
some twenty cases in the Gospel and Epistle. In Rev. 11: 6, we find
the same idiom, But the nature of the representations in the Apoca-
lypse, which are rapid and brief, does not require, nor even bear, the exe-
getical and in some measure repetitious structure of ovzog .. . a, and
the like. The difference in this respect is certainly notable; but the
nature of the composition seems not only to admit, but rather to demand,
such a difference.

(41) ‘In the Gospel, attraction of the relative pronoun is very fre-
quent ; in the Apocalypse it is nowhere found ;’ Liicke, p. 365.—'The
answer is, that in the Gospel I have, with a search extending through
the whole, found attraction only in 2:22. 4: 50. 7: 31,-89;. 15: 20e-dlsed.
21:10. In the Epistle only twice. On the other hand, the Apoe. 1:
20 presents us with wy» eidec, a clear case, (only Lachmann preferring
ovg) ; and in 18: 6, @ éxggaoe is acase about which no doubt exists.
Neither part of Liicke’s position seems then to be correct. Besides, as.

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 389

this usage is one of special idiom, we could hardly expect its frequency
in the Apocalypse. The Hebraizing Matthew and Mark never exhibit
attraction, one only case in Mark-7: 13 excepted.

(42) ‘ The Genitive absolute is wanting in the Apocalypse, but is fre-
quent in John ;’, Liicke ut sup.—Azs, In the Gospel I find some fifteen
cases of this Genitive; but in the Epistle none at all. On the other
hand, Biexdvtwy in Rev. 17: 8 I take to be in the Genitive absolute.
The want of this structure in the Epistle is no sound argument against
its genuineness. Such constructions, and specially the frequency of
them, depend very much on the nature of the composition.

(48) ‘No & zovz7@ . .. ozv in the Apocalypse, while it is very fre-
quent in John ;’ ib. p. 366.—Ans. I find but four cases of this in the
Gospel, while in the Epistle there are ten.. The formula is employed in
cases where peculiar specification or exemplification, in order to be very
explicit, is aimed at; and nearly always in grave reasoning or argumen-
tation. Hence the Epistle has so much of it; while the Apocalypse, a
very different book, has none. The composition of the latter is in-
deed quite of a diverse tenor, in many respects, from that of the Epistle.

(44) ‘The Apocalypse has no 6zu before direct quotation, while this
is frequent in John.’ ib. p. 8366.—Ans.. As to direct or formal quotation
from Scripture, the Apocalypse never makes it; see p. 231 above. In
respect to reciting the words of any person, the usage is variable in the
Gospel. Frequently 6zt is inserted before the words directly quoted ;
e. g. 1: 20, 32. 4: 42. 6:14 al. saepe. But not. unfrequently ozu is
omitted, e. g. in 1: 15, 21, 22, 23. 6: 65.. 7: 12, 28,37, 40, 41. 19: 12,
24, 28, 37. 20: 21, 22. Some of these, indeed, exhibit the Imperative
mode, before which ozt cannot well stand. But there are cases enough
to show, that. John’s usage, as in the case of other New Testament
writers, is very variable in regard to the point in question. In cases
where a speaker recites his own words, or delivers his own opinion, and
this follows either A¢yec or size, there is a great number of instances
with oz, and almost as many without it. The usage is altogether va-
riable in John’s Gospel, in regard. to this matter. In the Epistle sel-
dom indeed do we find occasion for such a construction. In the Apoca-
lypse ozt is employed before words cited, when the construction favours
it; see 3:17. In almost all the cases here of this nature, either a
Dative of person follows A¢yét, which naturally excludes oz, (the same
in John); or else the Imperative, or Imperative in an Optative sense,
is employed; or the Vocative follows; all of which of course exclude
out. The. cases where it might be employed, and is omitted, are but
few ; my reckoning makes them only some ten or twelve. Add to all
this, that the Hebrew “vax and “ax? rarely admit "> = oze after them.
In good Greek, oz: may be and is employed or omitted ad libitum serip-

890: § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

toris, before direct quotations; although the insertion is less usual. I
am persuaded that nothing can be made of this matter; for the Epistle’
of John varies greatly and almost as strikingly from the Gospel, in re-
spect to the frequency and the manner of employing oz.

(45) ‘When Hebrew words are translated, John exhibits EQMEVEVET Ely
and the like, before the translation ; which is not found in his Apoca-,
lypse ? ib.—'The answer to this has already been given on p. 230 seq.
above. We may also well say here, that Hebrew poetry does not stop
to explain with all the minuteness of prose.

(46) ‘The conjunction of both affirmative and negative forms in de-
claring a thing, is wanting in the Apocalypse, while it is frequent in
John.’—Ans. Such forms are not wanting in the Apocalypse ; e. g. 2: 13.
8: 8, 9, 16, 17. 18: 14. Comp. also the like turns of expression in 2: 2.
9: 6. 10: 9. 11:5. Even Schott himself appeals to this particular as
an evidence of similarity between John and the Apocalypse. » How
differently such matters may strike different minds, when in certain at-
titudes ! ;

(47) Ewald says, ‘‘ that in John the relative praepositive is frequently
separated from the noun to which it belongs, asin Gosp. 12: 18, 37,
which is not the case in the Apocalypse,” p. 68. The frequency of this
I cannot find. It is a thing im itself so small, and so purely accidental,
or at least depending on concomitant matter which requires a particular
position, that nothing can be made out of it worthy of note. And the
same may be said of Ewald’s alleged separation of words coherent, such
as noun and adjective or participle, verb and its object, and the like.
There is no difference that is striking or worthy of note. The like dis-
crepancy may be found between the Gospel and the Epistle, or between
different portions of the same Gospel. The Hebrew simplicity of con-
structing sentences in the Apocalypse, is sufficient to account for any-
thing of this nature.

(48) ‘Smaller clauses by a usus bene Graecus, thrown in by way of
explanation, and which might make a kind of parenthesis, are frequent
in John, but alien from the Apocalypse ;’ Ewald, p. 68.—Ans. So far
is this from being the case, that we often meet with such exegetical or
descriptive clauses ; e. g. Rev. 2:9, 24, 8:9. 4:9. 5:5, 8. 8:3. 9217.
11:5, 16. 16:14. 18: 15. 19:8, 10, 21:25. In nearly all these cases,

-an editor, who is fond of inserting parentheses, might find a place for
them; while in several, they are absolutely demanded. In searching
the whole Gospel of John through, I have not found any greater fre-.
quency, in proportion, of such epexegetical and descriptive clauses;
while in the Epistle they are much‘rarer, there being but very few cases:

(49) ‘John uses a participle preparatory, i.e. designating subordinate
action, very frequently in connection with the main verb which is to fol-

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 391

low; while the participial construction of such a nature is rarely to be
found in the Apocalypse.—Ans. The answer to this I have been able
fully to make out only by the very laborious process of readitig the Gos-
pel, Epistle, and Apocalypse carefully through, and noting all the ex-
amples of this nature. The result may be given in a few words. The
participle preparatory, in the stricter sense, is seldom to be found in the
Apocalypse, while it is somewhat frequent in the Gospel, but not to be
found at all in the Epistle. So easily may'this construction vary, being
entirely dependent on the kind of discourse. Historical narrative, which
continually gives us views of actions which were connected one with
another, and where one was preparatory to another, may admit, or
rather may require, the participial construction now before us; while
such discourse as the Epistle in the main excludes it, for an obvious
reason. In the Apocalypse the series of prophetic vision is presented
as mere emblem, and compound, connected, preparatory action in these,
in the stricter sense of these words, is rarely to be found. Rarely are
two immediately successive verbs exhibited, and where they are, the
action is not subordinate: but co-ordinate. On the other hand, where
subordinate action is exhibited, the participial construction is familiar to
the Apocalypse; e. g. specially in Adyar, Adyorres, equivalent to zat
dheye, nat eheyor, ete., asin 5:9. 6:10. 7: 2,10, 11,18. 11:1, 16, 12:
Denk as Aye PA B91 O5By PH 8) DEPT LT > L.08r2,-9and' 10,15,
18, 21. 19: 4,5, 17. 21:9. Some of these hardly differ from the usual
participial construction; but most of them naturally take the place
of a second verb subordinate, as stated above, the real grammatical prin-
ciple of the construction being the same as the usual one, i. e. they stand
in the place of a verb, and supersede its use. I do not place this com-
mon usage in the Apocalypse entirely on the same basis with that in
the Gospel, because it is easy to perceive some difference in the nature
of the thing. But in the Apocalypse, there is a use of the participle
which approaches nearer to a common Hebrew and Chaldee idiom, viz.
the employment of it as a verb, without special reference to a prepara-
tory and subordinate relation ; e. g. Apoc. 1: 16 (bis), 4: 5. 6:2. 7: 4.
10:2, 8. 17: 4. 19:12, 18. In John’s Gospel and Epistle are a con-
siderable number of cases, where the Part. is employed as a verb, by
the aid of eiué expressed. In the cases above noted in the Apocalypse,
siué is omitted. This is nothing strange, considering the rapid and ab-
rupt style of the Apocalypse, and bringing into the account, moreover,
that this is very common in Hebrew and Chaldee. The book of Dan-
iel, for example, is full of this idiom. At all events, inasmuch as the
preparatory participle, in the strict sense, is not to be found in the Epis-
tle, we cannot argue against the Johannean origin of the Apocalypse
because it is not employed there in all its classic extent. For the rest,

392 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

the participle as nomen agentis is frequent in the Apocalypse, and also
as an attributive both to agent and object. Undoubtedly the full freedom
of the Gospel in some respects, as to the use of the Part., is not to be
found here; still, the Gospel itself, as I have had occasion to notice in
the course of my inyestigation, employs two successive verbs in some
scores of cases, where a participle might have been used for one of
them. I do not perceive on the whole, when we consider the entire ab-
sence of the participial usage in question in the epistle of John, that
much can be made out of this case, against the apostolic origin of the
Revelation. It was an easy matter to make the objection under exam-
ination, from a slight reading of the Apocalypse; buta reply to it found-
ed on facts, must needs cost, as it-has, a protracted and most toilsome
investigation.

The reader will easily perceive, that the classification which has been
made above of the objections to the Apocalypse, under Nos. FE. IL, is
but very general and loose ; for a number of the particulars under each
category, might with equal propriety have been arranged under the
other. Indeed, so miscellaneous are the objections that strict classifica-
tion is scarcely feasible ; nor would any important end be gained by at-
taining to it. The main point is, to bring the objections fairly before
the mind, and properly to consider them.

There remains still a somewhat large class of objections, on which
much stress has been laid by some; and these must pass in review be-
fore us. I shall rank them, although they are quite miscellaneous, un-
der the following head; viz.

Ill. Objections deduced from different modes of representation and thought, and
from different views, which are presented in John and in the Apocalypse.
Licke does not pretend to deny, that John may have been Evange-

list, Letter-writer, and Prophet or Poet, in the course of his apostolic

life. The talent requisite for acting with success in each of these de-
partments, he would not regard as an impossibility or an improbability.

But still, conceding this, he cannot satisfy himself how John, acting in

any one of these various departments, should have appeared so different

from John acting in the other. In particular he appeals,

(50) To the Epistle of John and the Epistles to the seven churches
of Asia, between which, he seems to feel, a fair comparison may be in-
stituted. ‘The whole tone,’ he says, ‘of the apocalyptic epistles is en-
tirely different from the epistles of John. Here (in the Apocalypse)
we meet with no ayamyzol, no texvia ov, and the like; no repetition of
the main thought, nor movement in a kind of circle ; which are peculiar
to John. Both epistles have to deal with heretics and opposers; yet
how entirely different the mode of treating them! In John, everything

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 393

is referred to love, and faith, and communion with God and Christ and
with each other; and by such a spirit, all opposition is to be met and
all victories achieved. In the Apocalypse, there is strong and positive
blame and severe threatening. The tone is imperative, and magisterial,
instead of being gentle and hortatory.’

The picture here drawn may be somewhat overcharged in colouring ;
yet I think no one can read the epistles to: the seven churches, without
feeling that there is a manifest discrepancy between the tone and man-
ner of them and the epistle, or epistles, of John. Iam not disposed to
set'aside or even diminish this discrepancy ; for the occasion of writing
the seven epistles, the manner in which they are evidently formed, and
in fact the real author of them, all allow, not to say demand,:a discrep-
ancy of manner. Here is a proem to an epic, (if I may so name the
book), written in the same spirit as the book itself. The artificial form
of the composition is manifest at.once; and all seven of the epistles are
conformed to one and the same model. I do not mean, that the matter
of all is the same, but that the arrangement of the parts of each epistle,
or, in other words its form, is throughout fashioned after orie model.
Each epistle begins with describing the authority and some glorious at-
tribute of the Redeemer ; each sets before us a review of the works of
the church addressed; and each concludes with promises, or threaten-
ings, or both, as the nature of the case demands. Now here is most
palpable triplicity or trichotomy, in accordance with the general struc-
ture of the book. Nearly all the epistles, moreover, are of about the
same length. Nothing can be more certain, then, than that the struc-
ture of them is artificial, and that it is conformed to the triplieities of
the book throughout. The very tone and manner in which every one
of the epistles begins and ends, demonstrate this. And to all this we
must add, that from the very nature of the case here presented, it is
Christ who ‘here addresses the churches, while John is the mere instru-
ment. On the ground of inspiration, (which is the one that I stand
upon), there is no difficulty in this. A difference of manner, then, is
naturally to be expected. There is no proper place here for the mere
usual and social and complaisant ayamyroi, texvia mov, and the like. It
was not decorous for the great and glorious Head of the Church, in his
majestatic state, to assume the language and mien of a humble apostle
and mere fellow-Christian. Cudque swum. Even if John were not in-
spired, and still possessed talent to compose such a book as the one be-
fore us, he had talent and judgment enough to make the direct addresses
of Christ himself, in such peculiar circumstances, somewhat different
from the usual and familiar style of his own writings. Yet in the seven
epistles, with all their discrepancies, there is as thorough a manifesta-
tion of love, pity, compassionate tenderness, zeal for truth, and hatred of

VOL. I. 50

394 § 21, ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

error and immorality, as can anywhere be found. The manner of ex-
pressing these things in the Epistle of John, is indeed different ; but the
cast of sentiment, after all, is substantially the same. Add to this, that
the Johannean z& gov pervades the whole of the apocalyptic epistles ;
and even the favourite ovy of John, and the @Aacovro oz (2: 6), are
here employed. Vogel even assigns the epistles, on account of their
alleged discrepancy from the rest of the book in respect to style, to a
different author. While I regard this opinion, as to difference of author-
ship, as utterly unfounded, yet that there is a somewhat striking dis-
crepancy of style and manner, must be evident to every one, as seems
to me, from attentive perusal. But then again, there are so many re-
semblances to the rest of the Apocalypse as Cente to overbalance
this.

(51) ‘In the Apocalypse, the writer has shown that his mind is fraught
with a knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, and to them he has
everywhere appealed, not directly but indirectly. In the Gospel and
Epistle but little of this appears: The writer of the Apocalypse, while
handling the themes of the Gospel, would have more frequently appealed
to the Old Testament.’ Liicke, p. 376.

The Apocalypse is undoubtedly built, as to its modes of representa-
tion, on the Old Testament prophets. Hence the very frequent incor-
poration of their symbols, and modes of representation, with the matter
of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the difference between the Gos-
pel and Epistle, as to referring to the Old Testament, is as great as be-
tween the Apocalypse and the Gospel. Scarcely any use of the Old
Testament is to be found in the Epistle; while in the Gospel it is by
no means rare. A matter of this kind must depend altogether on cir-
cumstances and the nature of the composition. The like is true of the
different epistles of Paul. What right can we have to assume, that John
always moved, and must move, in one and the same circle, repeating
over and over what he had once said, and always in the same words
and phrases? Nothing that we know of him can justly entitle us to
such an opinion.

(52) ‘The Gospel and Apocalypse present views so entirely different
from each other, as to the mzaoovola or advent of Christ, that the same
person could not have been the author of them both. In John's Gospel
and Epistle, the advent is regarded altogether as a moral and spiritual
matter, as a silent and secret change to take place in the minds of men,
and not as a visible and tangible thing. In the Apocalypse, the appeal
is to the sensible, the visible, the external; and even if we do not in-
terpret the book after the grosssmanner of Papias or Montanus, yet the
external development of Christ’s kingdom is the predominant idea of the
Apocalypse.’

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 395

‘So Liicke and others; and they urge this matter very strenuously.
Liicke concedes, that the zagovot« is fully disclosed in the Gospel and
Kpistle ;* but still it is altogether mvevpatinms. ‘How could the same
John,’ he asks, ‘who heard and recorded the spiritual discourses of Je-
sus in respect to his coming, while these were still in his mind, have
given such a representation as is presented by the Apocalypse ?”

The difference of manner is indeed somewhat striking. But how
could it be otherwise? The one is all poetry, symbol, a world of sacred
vision and ideal representation ; the other, plain matter of didactic dis-
course, in which the true nature of the Redeemer’s kingdom as spirit-
ual and moral is plainly taught. Still the Apocalypse is neither more
nor less than the full completion of Christ’s own representation, as. con-
tained in Matt. xxiv. and parallel passages, and is clearly of the same
nature. And, in my apprehension, it would be just as proper to charge
inconsistency upon the Saviour himself, in the representations of his
adyent as related by John in his Gospel and as exhibited in the pas-
sages of the other evangelists just referred to, as it would to allege in-
consistency between the Apocalypse and the discourses of Christ in
John. How can continued and perpetual symbol appear otherwise than
as representing sensible things, if we examine it only partially and curso-
rily ? How many parables of the Saviour respecting his coming and
kingdom might be interpreted in the same way? And if so, then they
would seem to be contrary to the tenor of others, and to his declaration
that “the kingdom of God cometh not with observation.’ The whole
objection is built on an exegesis of the Apocalypse which is not tenable.
The visible and tangible and sensible is no more at the basis of this
work, than it is at the basis of the parables, or of Christ's kingdom as
set forth in Matt. xxiv. There are indeed sensible things concomitant
with the zagovoia; and these the Apocalypse has portrayed ;. while the
Gospel and Epistle enter into few or no particulars of this kind. . That
a kingdom —a reign — a coming — in the Gospel is one thing, and in
the Apocalypse substantially another, no one can make out except by a
strained and partial exegesis. Will Liicke affirm, that the Apocalypse
teaches the visible presence and reign of Christ on earth? He has not
ventured on this. But if not, why then is not the basis of all the sym-
bol in the Apocalypse the same as in the didactic representations of the
Gospel and the Epistle, viz. the ultimate moral and spiritual reign of
gospel principles among all nations? It is an idea very common to the
Gospel and Epistle of John, and more frequent than elsewhere in the
New Testament, Paul’s writings excepted, that the salvation of the
Gospel is designed for the whole world —for all men. What else is

* He concedes it on the ground of Gosp. 14: 1—3, 23. 16:7 seq., 15 seq. 17: 24.
3: 18—21. 5: Q1—29. 12: 31, 32, 46, 47. 16: 33. 1 John 2: 18 seq. 4: 1 seq.

396 §21, ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

the Apocalypse, but the symbolical and as it were visible representation
of this ? a... and Gospel are waneer° discrepant, in re-
spect to the views which they present, than Christ in the parables of
_ Matthew and Luke, is discrepant from the Christ of John. More full,
minute, complete representation, when it becomes (as in the Apocalypse)
the main object of a work, must differ in many respects from mere obiter
dicta in a plain and didactic manner. Yet why should they be deemed
inconsistent with each other? Is there anything in the Apocalypse,
which, due allowance for symbol and trope and poetry being made, is
inconsistent with the views of the zagovoia in the Gospel and Epistle?
I do not find it. Are not the é¢ épyouar of Gosp. 21: 22 seq., and the
drav pareondy and év 7] magovoig avrov of Ep. 2: 28, and the azoue ob
ay n&a of Rev. 2: 25, all of the same cast? And if so, do they not
serve as the key to the other representations ?

If to the allegation, that the Apocalypse is only a full and completed
view of the hints in Matt. xxiv. respecting the coming and kingdom of
Christ, one should object that. in Matthew and other evangelists that
coming is placed only in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem,
and not with the conquest of heathen enemies, while the Apocalypse
fully displays the latter ; I would readily concede the fact, that no more
than the destruction of Jerusalem is fully presented in the picture by
the evangelists. But in the Apoc. vi—xi., is not the same picture again
presented? Plainly it is. But then, in this latter work, inasmuch as
new enemies and persecutors of the church had appeared, who had
not made their appearance when Christ predicted the downfall of Je-
rusalem, it was greatly to the writer’s purpose to extend his views of the
triumphs of the cross beyond the boundaries of Judea. The Saviour
spoke of what was immediately before him and around him; the Apoc-
alyptist does not contradict this, and is not even at variance with it,
because he has extended his views to other enemies of the church be-
sides the Jews.

(58) ‘The Antichrist of John and of the Apocalypse are altogether
different. The latter is a worldly prince, who possesses worldly power
and malignity, and persecutes and destroys. The former is an errorist
in religion, teaches false principles, and is given to lying and deceit.
This opposition is moral, and not physical.’ So Liicke, p. 383.

But are not in fact the Antichrist of the Epistle and of the Apoca-
typse, (so to speak), quite different personages? The Antichrist of the
Epistle is evidently some one or many apostatizing Christians ; €& suo
ejAov, GAN ovx your & nudy, Epis. 2:19. The opposers of religion
in the Apocalypse are the unbelieving and persecuting Jews and hea-
then. Why should not the former be portrayed as errorists in doctrine,
and the latter as enemies in external measures, i. e. in persecution and

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 3897

violence? The adversary in the Apocalypse is like the a»@owz0g rig
amaotias, 0 cvetaeiuevos, 6 avouos, of Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. Liicke
seems to have wholly overlooked the fact, that John’s Antichrists in his
Epistle are apostates, while the enemy in the Apocalypse is the unbe-
lieving and persecuting Jew or Heathen. Let it be remembered, too,
that much as John, in his Gospel, speaks of opposition to gospel truth,
he never once employs there the word cziyouotos. It was plainly no
particular favorite with him.

(54) ‘The Apocalypse teaches a two-fold resurrection ; the first, of
the saints at the beginning of the Millennium; the second, of all men
at the final consummation and general judgment. The Gospel also
teaches a two-fold resurrection (5:21 seq.), but the first simply moral
and spiritual. How can representations so different belong to one and
the same writer? Licke p. 384.

My first remark, in reply to this, is, that the representation in Gosp.
5: 21 seq. belongs entirely to Christ; and, if it be so that a merely
moral change is here taught, I see no more difficulty in the Saviour’s
adopting this mode of representation, than there was of Paul’s pg ies
“ You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” But
Liicke’s objection depends entirely on the exegesis which he gives to
this passage, and which I cannot but regard as altogether improbable,
not to say impossible. First, John nowhere else, to say the least, em-
ploys this Pauline phraseology, in order to indicate a moral and spirit-
ual change. With him it is “Born of God, born of the Spirit, born
again.” It is therefore against all Johannean analogy to interpret
Gosp. 5: 21 seq. in the manner of Liicke. Then the text itself declares
the'resurrection brought about by Christ, as the resurrection of “all
who are & toig uryuetors,”— of the good to everlasting life, and of the
evil to perpetual condemnation, (v. 29), How can a mere moral and
spiritual resurrrection be the one in question here, when the good do not
need it, and the wicked do not attain to it? The resurrection of the
wicked here, is not their moral emendation, but in order that they
should be judged and punished. How can this mean their moral regen-
eration? And if it does, how can they still be condemned and punish-
ed? It is impossible to support such an exegesis.—Thus much for the
first resurrection said to be taught in the Gospel of John. This Gos-
pel teaches plainly the general resurrection only. As to the Apocalypse,
I do not well see how we can avoid the exegetical conclusion, that a
first and second resurrection is there taught. But I do not take this to
be a doctrine new and singular, at the time of John. I shall not, how-
ever, go into-a discussion of this question here, because I have consid-
ered it at some length in § 10, pp. 175 seq. above, and touched upon it
also in Excursus VI. on Rev. 20: 4—8; to which I would refer the

398 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

reader. It would seem that Jesus himself, and Paul, have at least in-
timated the like doctrine ; and that traces of ay even be found in
the Old Testament, and among the early Jewish Rabbins. But even
supposing that the writer of the Apocalypse has taught what is nowhere
else taught in the New Testament ; how would this be any more a va-
lid argument against the Johannean authorship of the book, than it is
against the Pauline origin of 1 Cor., that in this epistle only is taught
the giving up by Christ of the mediatorial kingdom at the final consum-
saat of all things, and the subjection of the Son to the Father, 1 Cor.
15: 24—28; and also, that the saints shall judge the world, and judge
angels, 1 Cor. 6: 2,3? Arguments of this nature can prove nothing as »
to authorship. Does Paul teach the same identical things, and only the
same, in all his epistles ?, Has John exhibited no doctrines in his Gos-
pel, which are not in his Epistle? In his Gospel, it is indeed only the
final and general resurrection and judgment that is introduced; but the
plan of the Apocalypse, and the development of the Millennium, de-
manded other corresponding developments not made before.

(55) ‘In John, belief brings peace and happiness forthwith. Faith
gives a present title to all desirable good, and the reward commences”
without delay. In the Apocalypse, all the Christian life is contest
and struggle and suffering. No happiness is to be expected in the pres-
ent life, but only in the life to come; and then principally as the re-
ward of fidelity amid persecutions. How can two representations so
different proceed from the same pen?’ Liicke p. 385 seq.

In the Gospel and Epistle there is indeed peace and joy promised to
all believers. The power of true Christianity to bestow these, is repre-
sented in a very attractive and forcible manner. The discussion of
these topics, however, is here general. No matters that are peculiarly
local and temporary are generally regarded, in passages of this nature.
But still, is there not an abundance of other passages, which shows the
disciples that they will be subjected to persecution and sufferings on ac-
count of their attachment to their Lord and Master, and which also for-
tifies their minds against the fear of these, and comforts them with the as-
surances of Christ’s presence and the aid of his Spirit? He must read
with eyes half-closed, who does not often meet with these; e. g. Gosp.
16: 18 seq. 16: 20 seq., 33. In the Hpistle, the frequently recurring
expression of overcoming the world implies the contest of Christians
with evil men and with sin. In the-Apocalypse, every important cir-
cumstance stands on a different footing from that of the simple doctrinal
instruction of the Gospel. The writer addresses Christians amidst the
fires of persecution. He does not promise them ease, quiet, personal
safety, in these circumstances. He knows, and assures them, that per-
secution is to rage still longer, Rev. 6: 11. Hence, very naturally, he

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 899

directs the eye of faith principally to the rewards beyond the grave.
Nothing can be more ample or alluring than these, as exhibited by him.
Even a part in the first resurrection seems, as he has presented it, to be
‘consequent upon steadfastness in the time of trial. Is there no differ-
ence, then, between teaching in a generic way the present and future
rewards of Christianity as things that belong appropriately to it, and
teaching the doctrine of rewards as appropriate to those who are hurried
to the prison-house, the rack, the gibbet, and the stake? It will not be
contended however, after all, that there is any important difference be-
tween John and the Apocalypse, as to the general idea of a future glo-
_ rious and immortal life for all true believers. Yet the tropical repre-
sentations of the Apocalypse in relation to this are more vivid, and at-
tractive, and persuasive, than those in the Gospel; evidently so in con-
sequence of proceeding from a more excited state of mind. But that
the Apocalypse excludes ideas of internal peace and joy in the present
world, as the result of belief or faith, is not fora moment to be supposed,
by any one who reads the seven epistles, or the subsequent descriptions
of the servants of God who are sealed in their foreheads. In a word,
the Apocalypse has made, on the whole, such representations of the
Christian’s reward as were best adapted to the circumstances of those
who were addressed. What hinders us from supposing, that John had
a nice sense of 70 2gézoy on occasions of this nature, and that he adapt-
ed his encouragements to the nature of the case ?

(56) ‘In the mode of conceiving and representing some of the lead-
ing ideas of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel, there is a great diversity.
The evangelist exhibits. a kind of Christian Gnosis. In this spirit the
prologue to the Gospel is written; and the Logos is the life and light
of the world, and all revelations of the Godhead are through and by him.
How different the Apocalypse! Here Rabbinic lore and artifice are
apparent. God appears as a seven-fold spirit. God in the Gospel is
the Father of Christ, and the Father and Friend of men; in the Apoc-
alypse, he is supreme Regent, and governs with justice and vengeance
rather than with love. The Apocalypse has no Paraclete, and no Christ
as owe tov xdomov.’ Liicke, p. 386 seq.

Is it not enough to say, as to the Gnosis, that the Apocalypse is not
designed to be didactic, in the like manner as the Gospel? John’s
Gnosis, if it must so be ealled, is appropriate in his prologue to a book
which exhibits a history of the Logos incarnate. But is there not the
same Logos in the Apocalypse? 19:13. And has any other writer of
the New Testament such a recognition as this? To speculate on the
Logos-doctrine in the Apocalypse, was out of question. And in regard
to the various and diverse attitudes in which God and Christ and the
Holy Spirit are said to be exhibited, this is in part to be acknowledged.

400 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

But at the same time, what can be more evident than that the Apoca-
lypse, which is a picture of the great contest between the powers of
darkness and the great Head of the Church, should, as it does, almost
everywhere exhibit God and Christ as supreme and omnipotent and ir-
resistible? In the war that is waged, the attitude of the leaders of the
adverse parties is that of commanders and warriors. The Gospel and
Epistle of John do not exhibit the contest in such a manner, nor place
it in the same light. Here God and Christ are usually represented as
judging and making moral retribution. After all, the thing substan-
tially aimed at and accomplished in both writings is the same, viz. moral
retribution. But the costume of poetry and symbol demands a very dif-
ferent mode of presenting the ideas in question. That God appears
rather in the attitude of dispensing justice, in the Apocalypse, than of
exhibiting love, is, as we have seen, a remark of Lucke. But why
should he not appear in this way, when the very theme of the: Apoca-
lypse is the subjugation of the enemies of Christianity? But is there no
love to his people, even in all this? Nay, I may well ask: Are there
any more attractive pictures, in all the Bible, of the love and pity and
tender mercy of God to the obedient, than are to be found in the Apoc-
alypse?

In respect to the Paraclete, there is only one passage in John where
this peculiar form of presenting to view the aid of the Holy Spirit is ex-
hibited. The doctrine of the influences of the Holy Spirit, however,
runs through the Apocalypse, and is abundantly taught. Here, as in
John, the Spirit “ guides to all truth ;” he is the author of all prophecy,
of all revelation to the servants of God. Here, as in the Gospel, the
Spirit is ascribed to God and to Christ; Rev. 1: 4. 8: 1. 5: 6. 22: 6.
Gosp. 14: 16, 25. 15: 26. 16: 7,14. And as to the septiform Spirit,
which Liicke attributes to the Apocalypse, I do not find it in Rev. 1: 4.
4: 5. 5: 6, as he represents. I find only the seven ministering spirits
or archangels before the throne of God; a Jewish mode of representing
this subject, which is at least as old as the book of Tobit (12: 15), and
probably goes much farther back. I take the use of seven in such cases
to be, as it often is, merely a symbolical method of presenting the idea
of completion or perfection. The almost numberless instances of the
like kind in the Bible, no one can overlook. I do not eall this Rabbini-
eal, but Jewish. It is no proof of Rabbinism, (for the Rabbins make
ten Sephiroth, not seven), but of familiarity with the Jewish custom of
symbolizing certain ideas by the use of certain numbers.

(57) The closing suggestions of the preceding paragraph naturally
bring us to another objection, briefly touched upon by Liicke, but urged
and exemplified by Ewald, p. 35 seq. This is, that ‘the Apocalypse
approaches much nearer the Cabbalistic lore than any other New Tes-

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 401

tament book. Whatever it has respecting angels, demons, Satan, and
the like, bears this stamp; and a species of the Cabbalistic Gematria
even is disclosed in Rev. 13: 18, and Cabbalism in 2: 17, and 21: 1—
22: 5, i. e. in the description of the New Jerusalem.’ To this Liicke
adds, that ‘while he concedes that angels are not foreign to John’s circle
of ideas, yet, in his Gospel, they appear only as performing offices of a
moral and spiritual nature,’ p. 387 seq.

I cannot enter here upon an exposition of the general angelology of
the Scriptures, but must refer the reader to Exe. I. on Rev. 1: 4.. From
this it is very plain, that John has done no more in the Apocalypse,
than to employ the angels in offices assigned and conceded to them in
the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. That they constitute a part. of
the supernatural machinery (sit venia!) of his moral epic, is plainly
true. The frequeney with which they appear, and the parts assigned
to them, are all in accordance with that general sentiment concerning
them, which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has uttered in
1: 14: “ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to
them who are the heirs of salvation?” In the great contest which the
Apocalyptist represents, how could it be that angels should not beara
conspicuous part, in opposition to the spirits of darkness? One may
call this Hebraistic or Jewish, if he pleases; but in it there is nothing
which gives just occasion for naming it Cabbalistic, or even Rabbinic
in a technical sense. And when Licke remarks, that ‘the Gospel of
John employs angels only on: moral and spiritual errands, while the
Apocalypse makes them preside over the elements and the phenomena
of nature; one might admit this, and yet appeal from his conclusion.
John in his Gospel employs angelic agents, if I may so express it, when-
ever and wherever the case demands. In the Apocalypse he has done
no more. There is no case in the Apocalypse of their interposition,
which is not justified by analogy in the Hebrew Scriptures. But is
an admission of what Licke suggests, respecting John’s Gospel, to be
made with propriety? ‘The angels of God ascending and descending
upon the Son of Man, (1: 52); the multitude supposing that an angel
had spoken to Jesus, (12: 29); the two angels clothed in white, and
sitting at the head and feet of Jesus, (20: 12); and above all, the angel
at the pool of Bethesda,’ (5: 2—7); show that the idea of such agents
was familiar to John. But in particular, the last case mentioned above
harmonizes in the very thing which Liicke regards as peculiar to the
Apocalypse, viz. in respect to angelic control over the material ele-
ments. I know indeed that Lucke affirms the last clause of v. 3 and
the whole of y. 4 to be plainly spurious; and so he easily avoids the
force of the argument. But how comes it, that neither Lachmann nor
Hahn marks this passage as’ being doubtful or even suspicious? How

VOL. I. 51

402 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

is it that no critical editor of note so marks it, exeept Griesbach and
Knapp? | Plainly because the evidence, even on the score of Mss.
and Versions, is decidedly. in its favour, and because v. 7 would be
unintelligible, not to say wholly unmeaning, without the controverted’
passage. . I consider this case on the whole to be so plain, that no rea-
sonable doubt can be entertained respecting it. And such being the
case, the doctrine of angelology in the two books of John is so much of
the same hue, even as to the speciality in question, as to afford rather a
presumption in favour of sameness as to authorship than of. diversity.
The greater frequency of angelic phenomena in the Apocalypse, is to
be ascribed to the peculiar nature of the book.

In respect to Rev. 1:4. 2:17. 15:18. 20:1 seq. being appropriately
Cabbalistie ; there is nothing in them, which decides in favour of this.
The seven spirits I have already remarked upon above. For 2: 17 1
must refer the reader to the Commentary. It expresses a purely Jew-
ish conception, very vivid, however, and truly poetic. The Rabbins
have indeed told many putid stories about the manna that was laid up
in the first temple ; but what is there in Rev. 2:17 which allies it to
them? It is merely a poetico-symbolie representation. In respect to
13: 18, I must also refer to the Commentary and the Excursus connect-
ed with it. It is there shown, that the passage is quite foreign to the
Cabbalistic Gematria; see also p. 141 above. Even Ewald himself, in
his commentary, concedes this, or at least he doubts whether it can be put
to the account of Gematria. As to chap. xx. seq., which exhibits.a pic-
ture of the New Jerusalem, I find no more Rabbinism or Cabbalism in it,
than I do in Ezek. xl. seq., after which it is most plainly modelled, although
still far from being a slavish copy of it.. Everything Jewish or He-
brew is not therefore Rabbinic or Cabbalistic.. It is indeed true, that
the Apocalypse makes an almost surprising use of the numbers three
and seven, throughout the book. We have seen its trichotomy or tri=
plicity, in all its parts great and small; see § 7 above, p. 131 seq. Its
heptades are also very numerous ; ib. p. 144. But the use of neither of
these numbers belongs to Cabbalism exclusively. The book of Job is
triplex throughout. The number seven occurs in a symbolical. or trop-
ical sense almost everywhere in the Old. Testament andthe New. It
is the kind of use only, in respect to these numbers, which distinctly
marks Cabbalism ; and this isnot found in the Apocalypse. In. truth,
one needs to resort only to Hebrew usages and modes of speech and con-
ception, in order to explain the phraseology of the Apocalypse. Why
then should this be called Rabbinic or Cabbalistic ? Many things, indeed,
which are merely Hebrew or Jewish, appear in the works of Rabbins ;
but this does not.give one. the liberty of naming them Oadbalistic.

(58) As negative evidence agains the apostolic origin of the Apoca=

AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 4038

lypse, Ewald (p. 76) says, that ‘the author does not call himself the
apostle John, but only a worshipper of Christ. .

But has he called himself the apostle John, in his Gospel or Epistle ?
There were other Johns in his time; why did he not distinguish him-
self from them in this way? Yet, it seems, he did not. But when the
writer of the Apocalypse tells his readers, that he was the John who was
in exile at Patmos, and addresses the Asiatic churches as their spiritual
Overseer, had he any further need of effort to disclose who was meant ?

(59) ‘In Rev. 18: 20, the saints and apostles and prophets are called
upon to exult over fallen Babylon; they are called upon as being in
heaven; and the apostles are so spoken of as if the writer did not belong
to their number.’ Ewald ut supra.

But this cannot amount to much. First, there is nothing in the pas-
sage, which makes it clear that the writer considers all of the apostles
as already in heaven, any more than he does all of the saints and pro-
phets who are named with them. Indeed, heaven may here mean merely
the blessed angels and the saints who had already died in the Lord;
while the others are addressed as yet on earth. Then, secondly, as to
naming the apostles collectively, as if the author were not of their num-
ber, does not Paul the same in Eph. 2:20, and yet without any design
to exclude himself ?

(60) Ewald says, that it would be incompatible with the modesty of
John to speak as the Apocalypse does in 21: 14, of “ twelve foundation
stones [of the new Jerusalem], on which the twelve names of the twelve
apostles of the Lamb were inscribed.” Yet Paul speaks of the church
(ut sup.) as “built on the foundation ‘of the apostles and prophets ; an
idea like to that which the Apocalypse brings to view. Paul is sure,
that he shall “receive a crown of glory, which the Lord the righteous
Judge will give him.” He asserts that he is “an ambassador of God ;”
also that he is “a wise master builder” of the gospel-edifice, 1 Cor. 3:
10; and John says of himself, in his Gospel, that he was “ the disciple on
whose bosom Jesus leaned—the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Can any
one justly tax Paul or John with vanity on this account, or with acting
contrary to the spirit of modesty? What shall we say of Paul’s rap-
ture into the third heaven, and of his being taught directly and person-
ally by the Saviour? In all cases of this nature, there is much to be
attributed to the consciousness of the individual in respect to his high
office and privilege, the assertion of which is not made in the way of
boasting, but for very different purposes.

Licke thinks that the word twelve sounds strange in the mouth of
John, inasmuch as Paul would be thereby excluded. But is it not the
case, that the apostles are named twelve (John 20: 24), even after the
death of Judas, and before Paul became an apostle? The word twelve

x
404 § 21. ALLEGED INTERNAL EVIDENCE

in reference to them became technical ; and whether there was one apos-
tle more or less, would make no difference as to employing that word in
such a sense. For the rest, the number twelve in Rev. 21: 14 was
plainly necessary, in order to correspond with the other parts of the de-
scription. The apostle Paul would not have supposed himself to be
slighted, I trust, by this portion of the Apocalypse. The generic nature
of the idea, like that of apostles in Eph. 2: 20, seems to me sufficiently
palpable, and to relieve the whole thing from any serious difficulty.

Thus have I gone through with the objections to the apostolic origin
of the Apocalypse adduced by Liicke ; and also noticed some others on
which he has not thought proper to rely. One or two more, adduced
by respectable writers, may deserve some notice.

(61) ‘The Apocalypse represents the government of the world as
about to be given to the Messiah, 11: 15 seq.; while heretofore it had
been exercised by angels as the agents, Rey. 1: 4. 3: 1. 5: 6. 16: 13.
12: 7—9. John exhibits nothing of this nature in his Gospel.’

Thus Schott; p. 481. As to supreme power belonging to the Son or
the Messiah, nothing can be more explicit than John; see Gosp. 5: 22
—27. 17: 2. 3: 35. In this respect there is the most entire harmony
between the Gospel and Apocalypse. Schott must therefore mean only,
that angelic agency is not so represented in the Gospel as in the Apoca-
lypse. On this I have already spoken above. I must however protest
here against making the Apocalypse represent angels as governing the
world in the higher sense. The Apocalypse ever and always regards
them as mere subordinates and instruments. The seven spirits of God,
which are of the highest order, and (so to speak) his presence-angels, are
presented in the Apocalypse (8: 2) as standing before his throne, i. e.
in the attitude of waiting and obedient servants, ready to receive and
execute his commands. And to Christ, let it be noted also, is the pos-
session or dominion of the same seven spirits assigned, Rev. 3:1. I see
nothing in the Apocalypse which assigns a rank to angels different from
‘ that assigned to them in the Gospel; see and comp. Rev. 19: 10. 22:9,
d: 11—14.

(62) ‘The Apocalypse assigns dignity to Christ as the Son of David,
(3: 7. 5: 5, 22: 16); while John assigns it to him as the Logos.’

So Schott, ib. But without any good reason. All three of the pas-
sages referred to merely contain quotations from. Old Testament pro-
phecy, (Is. 22: 22. 11: 1), and their design is, to describe Christ as the
true and predicted Messiah. But the Apocalypse abounds in other rea-
sons than this, why Christ is constituted Lord, and is the object of wor-
ship, and why he has uncontrollable supremacy ; as we shall see in the
sequel. As to the Logos ; only one passage in the Gospel (1: 1—18)
exhibits this appellation, while the Apocalypse ascribes to him the same

* AGAINST APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. 405

appellation and the same rank, 19:13. Indeed the attitude in which,
in several respects, Christ is placed, in the Gospel and in the Apoca-
lypse, and the attributes and works ascribed to him in both, constitute
a leading and striking trait of resemblance between the two books ; as
we shall soon see.

Other objections have been made to the apostolic origin of the Apoc-
alypse, by Corrodi, Oeder, Semler, and some other writers, who harmo-
nized with them in their contempt for this book. But they are of such
a character, that neither Schott, Ewald, Liicke, or Credner, have thought
it best to rely on them, or even to adduce them. It will not, therefore,
be deemed necessary that I should discuss them here. All that is re-
lied upon, at present, has already been adduced.

I might now proceed to give a summary or result of this discussion
respecting the ¢nternal evidence of the Apocalypse in regard to author-
ship ; but there is another part of the testimony which is yet to be heard.
Both sides must be examined, before we make up our opinion. Internal
testimony in favour of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse is not
wanting ;. and this remains to be heard.

§ 22. Internal evidence in favour of John as the author.

Such is the peculiar nature of the Apocalypse—a series of emblems
or symbols from beginning to end—such the personages, scenes, occur-
rences, places, etc., which pass in review or under the inspection of the
prophetic seer, that we find ourselves, in fact, transferred to a world
which is new and in many respects strange. How was it possible, in
‘writing such a book on such a plan, that the diction, the phraseology,
the ideas, the scenery, and in a word the whole contour of the book,

should not be yery diverse from such a work as the didactic Gospel of
* John; a great part of which is either doctrinal discussion, or else mat-
ter of a paranaetic nature? In respect to a writer of any talent—any
distinguished original powers of mind and imagination—one might easily
decide a priort that there must be many discrepancies between two
such performances. We have seen that there are many. Some of
them, certainly, are striking; and if the object and design of the Gospel
and the Apocalypse were of the same nature, we could hardly account
for it, that the same writer should differ so much from himself. As it
is, these discrepancies are less striking. We expect many of them,
when we see how closely the Apocalyptist has followed in the train of
the Hebrew prophets. Others we might not expect, which however
have analogies in the different works of Paul and Luke. Considera-
tions like these serve to abate, in some measure, the strength of the first
impressions, which are made on us by the consideration of merely the

”

&
406 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR

discrepancies between the diction and views of the Gospel and Apoca-
lypse. But this is not all. There remains some positive internal evi-
dence, in the Apocalypse; of its being Johannean, at least some that ap-
pears to be of such a character, which has not yet been developed, and
to the exposition of which we would now advance.

oil begin with the DICTION and PHRASEOLOGY; after that, the sENTI-
MENTS or views of the writer will come under consideration.

(1) One of the most striking traits of resemblance is presented by
the fact, that the favorite waezvege and wagzugia of the Gospel, in the
sense of declaration respecting the Saviour and his mediatorial work,
public profession and declaration of belief in him, is so common in the
Apocalypse. Thus in the Gosp., 1: 7, 19. 3: 11, 32, 33. 5: 31—36.
8: 18, 14. 18: 85. 21: 24. Epist. 5: 9 (tris), 10, 11, al.» Comp. Rev.
1: 2,9. 6: 9. 12: 11, 17. 19:10. 20: 4. 22:18, 20. Most. striking are
these last two verses compared with Gosp. 21: 24. One can hardly re-
frain from the feeling, that the same hand must have penned both pas-
sages. And this the more, because out of John’s works, there ‘is scarce-
ly any usage of this peculiar and appropriate kind to be found. _ Liicke
merely observes, in answer to this, that waezveia I. Xgwzov is not
found in the Gospel. But is it not virtually and plainly in Gosp. 3: 11.
5: 81, 82. 8: 18, 14?

(2) The use of mx&y in the sense of overcoming the evil and oppo-
sition and enmity of the world, with the implication of remaining faith-
ful and active the Christian cause, is peculiar to John and to the
Apocalypse ; comp. Gosp. 16: 33. Epist. 2: 18, 14.4: 4. 5: 4, 5. Apoe.
Qs.7, 4,17, :26::382°8, 12, 20.002 11s 4522 2is 7c Besidesthesevex=
amples, Rom. 12: 21 affords the only instance of the kind in the New
Testament. This peculiarity, so frequent, seems to be almost as strik-
ing as the one above. It is not a thing which belongs to common Hel-
lenism, and therefore it affords the stronger evidence of sameness of
authorship.

(3) “Ong, in the sense of human visage, is to be found only in Gosp.
11: 44 and Rev. 1: 16. No other New Testament writer employs it.

(4) Tigetv cov doyor is frequent in John’s Gospel and Epistle; the
same occurs often in the Apocalypse. I do not inclade in this the
phrase cygeiv cag évzolds, which is the common property of Hellenistic
Greek, modelled after the Hebrew idiom. But tHosiv TOV Adyor belongs
only to John. So cygeiv &%, Gosp. 17: 15 and Apoe. 3: 10; elsewhere
not.

(5) Xxnvovy is used in Gosp. 1: 14 and Apoe. 7: 15.12: 12. 18: 6.
21: 3. Elsewhere it is not found. Although in the Gospel it is pre-
dicated of the Logos, yet the idea of the verb is the same as in the
Apocalypse.

=
s
OF JOHN AS THE AUTHOR. 407

(6) Xperzrew is employed in Epist. 3: 12 (bis); also in Rev. 5: 6.
9: 12. 6: 4, 9. 13: 3, 8. 18: 24. Found nowhere else.

(7) “Ezew péoog is used in Gosp. 18: 8 and in Apoc. 20: 5. That in
the first case it is followed by wera and the Genitive, and in the second
by év and the Dative, does not affect the peculiarity of the idiom, as
Liicke supposes. This consists in the formula itself, éyew ugoog. The
manner of the sequel is dictated by the nature of the sentiment.

(8) Ilegutaceiy pera twos, Gosp. 6: 66. Apoc. 3: 4.—Lqoayitew,
Gosp. 3: 33. 6. 27 in the sense of confirmed, authenticated ; like to this,
but applied to the persons of men, in Apoc. vii.; not merely and sim-
ply marked, as Liicke translates it.

(9) Amaoru, Gosp. 1:52. 18:19. 14:7. Rev. 14:18. Elsewhere
only in Matthew. The verb déxvvw or Setxyvus occurs with unusual
frequency in the Gospel and Apocalypse. But this is common property.
—FEfoaiszi in Rev. 9: 11. 16: 16. Gosp. 5: 2. 19: 138. 17: 20. Else-
where not found.—Kozéw in the sense of fatigue, Rev. 2:3. Gosp.
4:6. Not elsewhere in this sense, excepting perhaps Matt. 11: 28.

(10) Aakeiy werd twog, Gosp. 4: 27. 9: 87. 14: 30. Rey. 1: 12. 4:
1. 10: 8. 17: 1. 21:9, 15. Elsewhere not, excepting once in Mark
6: 50. Iooczvveiy is said by Kolthoff (Joan. Apoc. Vindic. p. 114),
to be constructed both with the Accusative and Dative only in Gospel
and Apocalypse; elsewhere only with the Dative. But Luke 4: 8.
24: 52, exhibits the Accusative. Elsewhere it is wi ie Dative. The
frequent exchange of these cases, however, in te oma and Apoc-
alypse, is notable——Ovgards in the Gospel and Apocalypse has almost
constantly the article, in all circumstances; less frequently elsewhere.
The like remark may be made as to 6 Xgiordc. And 6 xvp.0g juar
‘Incovg Xovcr0g, so common in Paul, occurs not in any part of John.

(11) Kvgu, od oidug, Gosp. 21: 15—17 tris. Rev. 7: 14.—Aze-
xovdn 2éyar, Gosp. 1: 26. 10: 33. Rev. 7:13. The peculiarity is,
that John never in such cases employs amoxouets, the participle.

(12) The failure of certain words so common in the New Testament,
throughout the writings in question, is rather striking; e. g. of mectvoic,
yéevva. On the other hand, the frequent use of gos, marilo, do&c,
gaivo, and the like, in a tropical sense, in the Gospel, Epistle, and
Apocalypse, shows a similarity of colouring in the style. The compar-
ison of Christ with the dridegroom, in Gosp. 3: 29 should be placed by
the side of Rev. 19: 7. 21: 2. 22:17; not so much on account of the
general relation indicated by it, which is frequent in the Scripture, as
the diction. There is a similarity, also, between the mode of expres-
sion in Rev. 3: 20, and Gosp. 10; 27. 10: 1. 14: 23. So of the water
of life, Rev. 22:17. 21: 6, and Gosp. 7: 37. 4: 10. Comp. also Gosp.
4:14. Rev. 22:1. So of hungering and thirsting, Rev. 7: 16. Gosp.

”

408 § 22. INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR $

6: 35. Soa tropical sense for the word Sepuspog, Rev. 14: 15. Gosp.
4: 85, (differently applied, but still tropical) ; aumehog, Rev. 14: 18.
Gosp. 16: 1, is common to both books, although applied also in a differ-
ent way, as it easily might be. The image of cup, for suffering, trial,
Gosp. 18: 11, is very common in the Apocalypse. The image of Christ
as a shepherd, Gosp. 10: 1 seq., is presented in Rey. 7: 17, zowmavet nou
odnyn ost.

(13) Striking is the use of Lamb as applied to the Saviour, Gosp. 1:
29, 36. In the Apocalypse some twenty-five times. _ Nowhere else in
the New Testament is this employed, except twice in quoting from Is.
58: 7. John employs the form éuvog, but is familiar also with the other
form, égvior, 21: 15; the Apocalypse uses only the neuter form, @grior.
But the meaning is the same. The phrase or appellation originated in
the expiatory death and innocent character of Christ, and seems to be
employed so often in the Apocalypse in order to keep this in view.

(14) Mera zadzra, for the most part as a mere formula of transition,
equivalent or-nearly so to 5¢, ovv, is a striking feature of resemblance be-
tween the Apocalypse and Gospel; e. g. Gosp. 3: 22. 5: 1,14. 6:1.
Ts 18:7. 19538..:21: 4, Apoca ds 29.0423. Ts 3,9. De ED BS: Seek
19: 1. 20:3.° Luke occasionally employs the same formula; but not’
with the frequency that is common to the two books just named. The
Gospel also employs eta tovzo, in three or four instances, in the same
sense as peta tavza. Of course we might expect to find in the Gospel
a greater variety of usage in respect to the particles, or words equiva-
lent to them, than in the Apocalypse, which is thoroughly pervaded by
the Hebrew element.

(15) The Apocalypse frequently employs Hebrew words, and then
adds a Greek explanation of them; which John also does in his Gos-
pel. E. g. Rev. 3:14. 9:11. 12:9. 20:2. 22:20. Gosp. 1: 89, 42, 43.
9:7. 19:13, 17. This is occasionally done elsewhere ; but the frequen-
cy in these books is a circumstance worthy of note.

(16) Iecgew, followed by eis before the noun signifying the object
on which the writing is made, is peculiar to the Apocalypse and Gospel ;
e.g. Apoc. 1: 11. Gosp. 8:6, 8. This is such a speciality in construc-
tion as merits particular notice; elsewhere the Dative with é is em-
ployed to designate the like relation, e. g. 1 Cor. 5: 9.

(17) That the doctrine of perseverance is common to both writings,
may readily be supposed. It is not merely because it is found in both,
that I reason in favour of sameness of authorship ; but because the mode
in part of expressing the sentiment, even when mingled with a highly
figurative context, in the Apocalypse, bears a resemblance to John’s
method. ‘Thus Rey. 3: 12, ov py eser0 Hf] ext, may be compared with

é a
OF JOHN AS THE AUTHOR. 409

Ep. 2: 19, where jon && suo» is said of heretics. Gosp. 6: 87. comp.
10: 28, 29.

(18) The use of cyuatra in Gosp. 12:33. 18: 32. 21:19, and in
Apoe. 1:1, may deserve a passing notice, inasmuch as the word is found
but twice elsewhere in the New Testament, viz. Acts 11: 28. 25: 27.

(19) The neuter gender is used to express rational beings, in Gosp.
6: 87, 39. 17: 2, 10. So xziswa in Rev. 5: 18 al.; wav, 21: 27.

(20) If dv: with Ace. as indicative of means, instrumentality, is to be
admitted in the New Testament, (and I think it must be), it would seem
to be confined to the writings of John; at least other cases are some-
what doubtful. See Apoc. 12:11, dic 76 aiua and dia tov Loyor; 18:
14, dia r& onusta. Gosp. 6:57. But even in these cases, the instru-
mental sense is doubted by some. See Win. Gramm. § 53. ¢.

(21) John, Gosp. 19: 34—37, has given an account of piercing the
Saviour’s side with a spear 5 and he only has given it. To this he ap-
plies the prediction in Zech. 12:10, “They shall look on him whom
"ps, they have pierced.” John renders this last Hebrew word by é&e-
xévtyour, while the Seventy have avd ov xacweyncarto ; having pro-
bably read the Heb. p> by an easy mistake of t and“. Aquila, Sym-
machus, and Whieeasiicis all translate by ekexdrejauy 3 but they were
posterior to the Apocalypse and Gospel. Apoc. 1: 7 exhibits the same
version asin the Gospel. As this version must be the effect of translat-
ing de novo, it looks much like the same hand in both passages. Ewald,
in order to avoid the force of this, suggests that t Pestadgint may
have once read éexevrycar, and been afterwards altered; also that two
different persons might have hit upon the same translation. Either of
these cases is possible ; but the first is wholly improbable. And inas-
much as John is the only Evangelist who gives an account of piercing
the side of the Saviour, and who applies the passage in Zechariah to
this occurrence, it looks very much like the same hand in both passages,
and like the same mind appreciating the circumstance of the wounded
side in the same way. On Ewald’s ground, I do not see how the Sept.
Version can ever be appealed to in such cases. The different construc-
tions in the Gospel and Apocalypse, oweras ei¢ ov and 6wera eis avtdr,
in connection with éexéytyoa», are occasioned merely by the construc-
tion of the respective sentences in which they stand, and make nothing
in favour of different translators.

We come now to those traits which might be ranged under the cate-
gory of pocrRINAL. It is my principal object to bring into view those
things which have respect to the character and work of the Redeemer ;
for most of what there is in the book, which is of a special doctrinal na-
ture, has reference more or less to the great Head of the church, who
leads on his armies to victory.

VOL. I. 52

410 § 29, INTERNAL, EVIDENCE FOR THE APOCALYPSE.

(22) The appellation Adyo¢, as distinctive of person, occurs only in the
Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse. Thus Gosp. 1:1, 14. Ep. 1:1. 5%
Apoc. 19:13. When Liicke says, that ‘John nowhere names Christ
Léyog tod Mod, as the Apocalypse does; might not one reply and say :
John nowhere says Aoyos zig Sos except in Ep. 1:1, and is it there-
fore to be argued that John the evangelist did not write the Epistle ?
The truth is, that no other writer of the New Testament uses at all the
personal appellative in question; and it seems to be purely Johannean.
That as an appellation of a person, it has the like sense in the Gospel,
Epistle, and Apocalypse, there can be no room for doubt. In the Gos-
pel, John attaches to it various considerations, some of them of a specu-
lative, high, and mysterious nature. But in the Apocalypse, the nature
of the case does not permit him to theologize. The circumstance of such
a usage is entitled to our special consideration.

(23) The Christology of the Apocalypse, in respect to the dependence
of the Saviour on God the Father for his doctrines and instructions, is
strikingly in unison with that of John. In Rey. 1:1, the revelation of
Jesus Christ is asserted to be that which God gave him, in order that he
might teach it to others. Let the reader now compare Gosp. 17: 7, 8.
5: 19, 20. 7: 16. 8: 28. 12: 49. 14: 10, and he will see how exactly this
shade of meaning agrees in both books. Elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment different modes of expressing this relation may be found; but they
are unfrequent, and wanting in the special resemblance here indicated.

(94) The views of the Gospel and Apocalypse respecting the dignity
and glory of the Saviour, are of the same cast, each elevating him io the
highest degree. Thus in the Gosp. 1: 1—18. 5: 20—29. 6: 62. 8: 54
—58. 10: 28—380. 12: 41, 17: 1—d5. Comp. Rev. 1: 5 seq. 3: 21. 5: 6
—13. 7: 17. 11:15, 12: 5. 14: 1. 19; 1O—13. 21: 23. 22: 13—-16. In
2: 17 the implication is, that his name is equivalent to min>.

(25) That Christ isa Saviour for all the human race, Jews and Gen-
tiles, is an idea frequent in John and in the Apocalypse, Gosp. 3: 16.
10:16. 11: 51, 52. 12:32. Ep, 2; 2:4: 14.. Apoed: 9...7: 9. 21: 25,
26. 22:2. This doctrine is common in the writings of Paul; but the
shape of it in the books above named, is different from that in Paul’s
Epistles.

(26) The omniscience of Christ is often alluded to both in the Gos-
pel and in the Apocalypse, Gosp. 1: 49. 2: 24, 25. 4: 17, 18. 6: 61, 64,
70. 13: 1, 11, 18, 21. 16: 29, 30. 21:17. Apoc. 1: 1. 2: 2, 9, 18, 19,
23. 3:1. 8:15. Why Bretschneider and Schott should say, that the
Apocalypse represents Christ only as knowing the ggya, the external
works, of men, while the Gospel represents him as searching the heart,
I know not, Rev, 2: 23 says: ‘ All the churches shall know, that I
[Christ] am he who searches the reins and the hearts, and I will give to

§ 23. RESULT. AlL

every one of you according to your works.” Besides, Zoya is not to be
taken in the limited sense of external works merely. It includes the
character of those works ; which ean be estimated only by a knowledge
of the state of mind that accompanied them.

(27) The piacular death of Christ is a doctrine which pervades the
Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse, and ina similar way. As examples
I refer only to a few cases. Gosp. 1: 29, 86. 3:16. 6:51. 10: 15, 18.
Epes 7. 2:2. 4: 100 Apoe. Is 5." 5:29.07: TA. 19: 1. 14:4: This doe-
trine is indeed taught by nearly all the writers of the New Testament ;
but the form in which it is elsewhere developed, differs somewhat from
the Johannean.

It were easy to extend the comparison that we have been making to
many other particulars both of language and of doctrine. This has in-
deed been already done by Schulze, Donker Curtius, and others. But
I have not much’confidence in arguments of this nature, when pushed
beyond moderate limits. In fact, a considerable portion of the argu-
ments of such a kind, if indeed they may be called arguments, which are
employed either in assailing or defending the apostolic origin of the
Apocalypse, weigh but little in the estimation of those who are familiar
with topics of such a nature. The reasons for such a judgment upon
the case I shall give in the sequel, when we come to the inquiry : What
is the result of the internal evidence? ‘To this we are now ready to
come; asking the liberty, however, before the answer is specifically
made out, of premising various considerations of which we ought to take
cognizance, and which should have their proper influence in making up
our minds as to the final result.

¢

§ 23. Result.

AND NOW WHAT SAYS CRITICAL JUDGMENT AND CONSCIENCE? A
question differently answered, as it appears, by different persons. In-
deed, such is the case before us, that we can hardly expect unanimity
among critics at present. In Germany, as one might almost conclude
from a survey of the late writers, they seem to be approaching to an
agreement in opinion, that the Apocalypse is not to be attributed to
John the Evangelist. Yet very recently a number of writers here and
there have come forward in vindication of its Johannean origin. How
the question is and will be decided, would seem in many cases to stand
intimately connected with a kind of general judgment concerning the
Apocalypse, which is based upon its mysterious form and contents, and
upon preconceived notions of its obscurity and inutility to the church,
rather than on any profound critical examination of the whole matter.

Such was notoriously the judgment of Luther. In his Preface to the

412 § 23. RESULT.

Apocalypse, which he at first printed as an apocryphal book, he says :
“More than one thing presents itself in this book, as a reason why I
deem it to be neither apostolical nor prophetic. First, and most of all,
that the apostles do not concern theniselves with visions, but prophesy
in plain and unadorned words ; as Peter, Paul, and Christ in the Gos-
pel, do; for it belongs to the apostolic office, clearly and without simile
or Vision to speak respecting Christ and his work. Moreover, there is
no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who is
through and through occupied with visions ; so that I almost imagine to
myself a fourth book of Ezra before me, and certainly can find no rea-
son for believing that it [the Apocalypse ] was composed by the influence
of the Holy Spirit.,—After suggesting some objections to the claims
which the Apocalypse makes for itself, he proceeds: “ Let every one
make up his opinion respecting it [the Apocalypse], as he judges best.
My mind cannot-adapt itself to the book, and it is reason enough for me
not to prize it very highly, that Christ is neither taught nor acknow-
ledged in it; which is the great business of an apostle.”

This last reason of Luther is, as I have before remarked, the most
extraordinary of all; for if there be any book in the New Testament,
which is all Christ, from beginning to end, that book is the Apocalypse.
His coming, his kingdom, his triumph over all enemies, his protection
of his suffering people, his atoning blood, its universal efficacy, his ma-
jesty, his omniscience, his omnipotence, his judgment of the world, his
magnificent preparation for the future blessedness of the saints—in a
word, his coming in all its glory and excellence, with all its present and
future results—these are the themes, the constant unchanging themes,
of the Apocalypse. Are his enemies brought upon the scene of action ?
It is but to display his power and glory in subduing and humbling them.
Is the world of light and love opened to his faithful followers? It is he
who has opened it; he “who has redeemed them to God by his blood,
out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation; he who has
made them kings and priests unto God forever and ever.”

To say, moreover, that there are no vistons in the Gospels, in Peter,
and in Paul, sounds strangely in our ears. Follow Peter in the book
of Acts; and see what he says in 2 Pet. 1: 18 seq. Follow Paul, also,
in the book of Acts; and consult him in 2 Cor. xii. Brief, indeed, are
the accounts of trances and visions, and not protracted like those in the
Apocalypse. But who can show the impossibility, or the improbability,
of a book mainly or purely prophetic, in the New Testament? And if
so, why is not the costwme to be prophetic? When Luther says, that
‘no prophet even of the Old ‘Testament so indulges in visions as the
author of the Apocalypse,’ is this correct, when applied to Dan. vii—xii,
i, e. the prophetic part of the book? And is not Ezekiel an almost un-

§ 23. RESULT. 418

interrupted series of visions? And so of Zech. i—vi. The “plain and
unadorned words,” which Luther insists on as characteristic of the apos-
tles’ teaching, and also of the Saviour’s, if meant to exclude tropical lan-
guage, and parable, and similitude, is a mistake sufficiently obvious.
Such a continuous series of symbols cannot, indeed, be found in any
other book of the New Testament; but what other book is prophetic ?

That Luther afterwards modified his opinion, in the progress of his
controversy with “the scarlet beast,” is well known. But his opinion,
as an affair of criticism, is hardly to be spoken of here. Nothing can
be more evident, than that he had not well studied the book which he
condemns ; for otherwise he could not have so misconceived of its con-
tents. I mention his case here again, merely because it casts light on
the grounds on which the sentence of condemnation, in respect to the
book before us, sometimes rests. Luther is not alone in forming a judg-
ment of this character, and on like grounds.

In quite recent times, the Apocalypse has received but a small share
of critical attention in Germany. In England and America, nearly all
the writers upon it have assumed more the character of prophets than
of critics. They make it a syllabus of universal history, civil and ec-
clesiastical ; and each finds the corresponding events, according to fancy
or traditional exegesis. There is, of course, no end to diversity of
opinion, and no basis on which any one theory can be firmly built. So
much have @ priert views, and traditional views of one kind and another,
guided the decision of most writers in regard to the supposed contents
of the beok, and also in respect to the origin and authority of the book
itself. :

It scarcely need be said, that we are to guard ourselves against every-
thing of this kind, when we come to make up our final judgment re-
specting the origin and character of the book before us. Whether the
book may stand or fall, can be decided, and ought to be decided, on no
other ground than that of argument and reason such as sound criticism
can approve. Our prejudices, our theology, our apprehensions of the
unprofitableness, or even of the evil tendency of the mysterious and the
undefined which seem to pervade the Apocalypse, ought not to control
our judgment, whether the apostle John wrote the book. The evidence
does not depend on our subjective feelings, but on objective facts and
testimony.

Thus much will be conceded by every impartial and critical inquirer.
But how shall all be brought to pass the same sentence in respect to the
weight of internal and external evidence? This is a matter which, at
present, seems to be beyond the reach of any one. But while I doubt
not, that many will not accede to the opinion which I have formed re-
specting the authorship of the Apocalypse, it will not be out of place

414 § 23. RESULT.

for me to suggest some specific grounds or reasons, why I think that
less dependence is to be placed on the internal evidence, conditioned as
it now is, than most of the recent critical investigators are wont to put
upon it.

(1) There is no man of talent, who has a ready flow of words at his
command, and employs himself with any frequency in writing, who
will always confine himself to the same round of diction and phraseolo-
gy, even when expressing the same thoughts. Occasionally his per-
sonal idiom (if I may so speak) will make its appearance. ‘There are
some general qualities of style also, such as perspicuity, energy, brevity
of expression, and the opposite qualities, which will, for the most part,’
extend themselves to the writings in general of any individual; quali-
ties that often result more from personal feeling, than from any influence
of mere education over one’s style. As a general principle, the traits of
one piece of composition will develope themselves in another which is
from the same hand, provided the pieces are written nearly at the same
time, in like circumstances, and on kindred topics. But how numer-
ous are the examples, both in poetry and prose, of persons who have
written some one or more pieces with great spirit and power, and who
have never, before or afterwards, achieved anything in the way of
composition that will bear comparison with those pieces, either in re-
spect to matter ormanner? The diversity in this respect is exceedingly
great. ‘There are men, who form their habits of expression even in
early youth, and cleave to them everywhere and at all times through life.
There are others, who not only change very much at different periods
of life and practice, but who are so influenced by reading and thinking,
that they are always changing their style in some degree. No univer-
sal maxim can be laid down, in respect to mutability of style. Exam-
ples in abundance can easily be produced, seemingly adequate to estab-
lish opposite conclusions in respect to this subject. This ought to teach
us caution as to relying upon any uniform and established principle in
relation to this matter. Uniformity, even as a general thing, cannot
well be established.

(2) If such uniformity might be established as a general principle in
respect to prose, or in regard to poetry, i. e. in respect to each particu-
lar kind of composition by itself considered, yet it would prove little or
nothing in respect to the different compositions of poetry and prose. A.
man of small talent and very limited resources might write poetry and
prose, indeed, in very nearly the same way. Of his poetry it might be
said: Wisi pede differt, sermo merus. All his productions, in such a
case, might have one and the same stamp, easily recognized and almost
surely distinguished. But was John a man of this character? Does
the speculative and doctrinal character of his Gospel develope a mere or-

§ 23. RESULT. 415

dinary and common-place thinker? Or does the very frequent use of
metaphor and trope in this book, show him to have been a man of slug-
gish or barren imagination? Methinks the man on whose bosom Jesus
leaned, and whom Jesus loved, must have had some rare and striking
qualities. And who so fit a person as he, to entrust with the deeply in-
teresting disclosures of the Apocalypse ?

It is a conceded point, as has often been mentioned, that the Apoca-
lypse is virtually a book of poetry —of prophetic Hebrew poetry, in
regard to its costume. As we have already seen, no book in the New
Testament has so much Hebraism in it, or leans so much+on the Old
Testament, in respect to its form and manner, as the Apocalypse.
Such being notoriously the fact, does it not follow, almost as a matter of
course, that this book must differ, in a great variety of respects, from a
book of didactic discourses, or a plain and familiar epistle of caution,
warning, and exhortation? ‘To suppose that John must exhibit the
same thoughts, phrases, and words, in each of these very diverse com-
positions, is to suppose him to have been a very common-place writer,
and very dull in his apprehension of things, or of the proper manner of
representing them. In fact, the diversity of style, in such a case,
would depend on several things, viz., on the different degrees of excite-
ment in the writer’s mind, on the different circumstances in which he
was placed when he wrote, or the difference of his theme, and on the
taste and talent of the writer. I do not mean, to exclude the idea of
inspiration. I believe and admit it. But nothing is more certain, at
the same time, than that the sacred writers both of the Old Testament
and of the New, have all developed their own respective personal traits
and talents as conspicuously as the Latin, Greek, or English writers
have done. Inspiration does not subdue or conceal all that is personal
and characteristic. I might perhaps even say, that it serves to bring it
out more prominently to view. We need not hesitate, therefore, to
speak of the diverse traits of John’s writings, as being the natural re-
sult of the diverse compositions, and of the different circumstances in
which they were written, as well as of the probably different periods of
time when they were undertaken. I know of no argument against
this mode of reasoning, which would not banish from the Bible all dis-
tinction of style, and reduce all its very various compositions to one and
the same standard as to their aesthetical character.

IT am aware that Liicke has more than once cautioned us not to rely
on any difference of time, (which would amount to anything in the way
of affecting the style of John), between the writing of the Apocalypse
_and of the Gospel and Epistle. Yet the probability of considerable
difference, I hardly think can be reasonably denied; and the progress
of John, as to familiarity with the Greek, ad interim, must have been

- :

416 § 23. RESULT.

considerable. All these things are at least to be taken into view, in
making our final estimate.

(83) There is not, as I verily believe, a single Epistle of Paul, which
might not be rejected from the canon for want of genuineness, in case
the arguments against it might be made out in the same way as they
are against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse. We will take for
example one of the least controverted of all the Pauline epistles, viz.
the first Epistle to the Corinthians. For the purpose of illustrating my
meaning, I must crave the liberty merely to touch upon some of the ar-
guments, which might be brought forward against the genuineness of
this undoubted epistle.

(a) ‘Itis a most extraordinary affair, and yet matter of fact, that
there are, in this epistle of only sixteen chapters (many of which are
short), no less than 230 d&ma& Leyouera, i. e. words never found in any
other of Paul’s epistles. How was it possible that the same writer
should have so far departed from the usual circle of his diction, within
bounds so narrow ?—This mode of argumentation is not indeed formal-
ly brought forward, at present, in respect to the Apocalypse, but it is
virtually so, when appeal is made to so many words found in the Apoca-
lypse, and not in the Gospel and Epistle. Such an appeal can prove
nothing ; or if it does, it proves a great deal too much. - E. g. in the
brief epistle to the Philippians may be found fifty-four aza& Aeyouerar ;
in Galatians, fifty-seven; in Ephesians and Colossians, one hundred and
forty-three ; in 1 Timothy, eighty-one; in 2 Timothy, sixty-three; in
Titus, sixty-four, ete. (See Note in Kolthoff, p. 110). And so it must
be with every writer, who has anything to say which he has not said
before. Paul and John fairly belong, in my apprehension, to this class
of writers. But,

(6) I have been through the first Epistle to the Corinthians seriatim,
and sought out all the words and phrases and thoughts which are pecu-
liar to this epistle ; and such a list of them have I found and made, that
one could at first scarcely believe the result, and yet believe that the
epistle belongs to Paul, provided the mode of reasoning in question be
adopted. I will not repeat here, what I have elsewhere (Comm. on
Heb. p. 219 seq. edit. 2) submitted to public view. But there is not a
chapter, in which one cannot find either words or phrases nowhere else
employed by Paul, or else phraseology which expresses an idea that he
has signified in a different way in his other writings. Such words and
phrases not only amount to some scores, but to several hundreds. There
is scarcely a case of phraseology in the Apocalypse, which is appealed
to in order to disprove its apostolic origin, the like of which is not re-
peatedly to be found in the epistle before us. If the reader has any
doubt of this, I must refer him, for the solution of his doubt, to the ex-

§ 23. RESULT. 417

hibition of words and phrases which is made in the work above referred
to. Indeed the instances are so numerous, that it would be out of place
to repeat them here. At all events, the facts just stated cannot be call-
ed in question by any one, who will thoroughly attend to and examine
the subject. Then,

(ce). ‘On the score of doctrine, there is still more objection to be made
to the Pauline origin of this epistle. First the absence of favourite
Pauline subjects of discussion is striking. What is there here of the
great question about justification by faith without the deeds of law?
What respecting the vanity and folly and presumption of Judaizing
teachers? What of the worthlessness of Jewish rites and ceremonies ?
What of the equal rights of Jews and Gentiles in the Gospel-Church ?
Then, secondly, we find the discussion of many topics here, which are
not elsewhere touched upon. ‘The subject of spiritual gifts, although
elsewhere adverted to, is nowhere placed in sucha light as here. Then
comes the marriage relation, which must have presented the like ques-
tions in other churches, but of which Paul says nothing like what is
said in this epistle. Where has this apostle given such minute direc-
tions about the dress, demeanor, and rights of women, as are in the first
to the Corinthians ? Where has he discoursed, in the like way, upon the
Lord’s Supper; on the support of preachers; and on the comparative
influence of faith, hope, and love? Where has he said anything about
the resurrection of the dead, in such a peculiar manner as he has dis-
cussed this subject in 1 Cor. xv.? Where else has he intimated any-
thing about being baptized for the dead? 1 Cor. 15: 29. Above all,
where has he or any other sacred writer, said anything about the subjec-
tion of the Son to the Father, at the final consummation of all things, like
to that which is said in | Cor. 15: 24-28? Where has either Paul, or
any other sacred writer, elsewhere taught that the saints will judge the
world, and will judge angels, as is taught in 1 Cor. 6: 1—3? Where, in
Paul’s epistles, is a first and second resurrection taught; as it seems
plainly to be in 1 Cor. 15: 23, 24? (Comp. dzagyy... éeiwa . ... size,
as noting distinct and successive events in their order; and see De
Wette’s Comm. in loc.).

Such is the array of objections which lie upon the face of the first
epistle to the Corinthians. And this list might easily be swelled out to
a much greater extent, if a doubter in the genuineness of this epistle
should feel so disposed toward it, as Corrodi, Oeder, Semler, and many
others, have done toward the Apocalypse. Nothing is easier than to
get up such questions, and bring forward such difficulties. Every an-
cient or modern writing is exposed to them. And if, in themselves,
they were sufficient to determine the question of genuineness, we should

VOL, I. 53

418 § 23. RESULT.

have but few genuine writings in all antiquity, among authors who have
written much and on a variety of subjects.

It is not my impression, that a man of so much candour as Licke
seems to possess, means to write in such a spirit as Corrodi and Sem-
ler. But having taken his position with so full assurance (see p. 285),
he cannot but feel an interest to press into his service all that can well
be employed in such a way. For example ; when he comes (p. 369
seq.) to review the words and phrases in the Apocalypse. which are
alleged to be like others in John, he lays hold of the most minute cir-
cumstances of construction in the context in order to make out a differ-
ence, even in cases where this construction was required by the nature
of the enunciation.. The same process applied to the first epistle to the
Corinthians would make an enormous list of discrepancies from Paul
elsewhere. In fact it is my full persuasion, after having gone through
such a minute and laborious process of comparison, that the ¢nternal evi-
dence against the genuineness of the first to the Corinthians is decidedly
greater, whether we refer to diction and phraseology or to doctrine, than
the like evidence in the Apocalypse is, against its apostolic origin. Any
man who holds these two writings in the balance, if he decides against
either on the ground of ¢nternal evidence; must decide against both.

Yet Liicke, Ewald, Schott, De Wette, Credner, and others, all assign
the first Ep. to Corinthians to Paul. Why? Because of the external
evidence, and because there are many resemblances, after all, to the style
and sentiments of Paul, scattered throughout the epistle. They are
satisfied that Paul, in treating of subjects diverse from those which are
discussed in his other epistles, must have had oecasion for different
words and different modes of expression. ‘They allow this liberty. If
now they do this, and if they justly allow it; and allow it in respect to
amere prosaic epistle, called forth by the exigencies of the church to
whom it is addressed, and thus resembling in its occasion the other epis-
tles of Paul; how can they refuse to prophetic poetry, modelled closely
after that of the Hebrews, the like liberty of discrepancy from other
prosaic compositions, as to diction and phraseology, and as to the circle of
ideas and subjects introduced to the reader’s consideration? A fortiori
such a liberty of differing from prosaic composition must be conceded to
the writer of such a book. I would ask for no more than any man,
who has well studied the subject in regard to the first Ep. to Corinthians,
will feel bound to concede, in order to maintain the genuineness of
that epistle.

We may safely and readily admit, that there are some, or (if it be
insisted on) many discrepancies of diction and phraseology, and differ-
ences as to doctrines developed, between the Apocalypse and the two
books of John, Yet how all this is to prove that John did not write

§ 23. RESULT. 419 .

the Apocalypse, I do not see. Is it so, that Luke did not write the
Acts of the Apostles, because there are so many words and phrases in
it, which are not in his Gospel? And specially, because in Acts the
development of doctrines, both in respect to manner and matter, differs
so much from that in the Gospel? Such reasoning, then, proves too
much. It leaves us no safe harbour or place in which we may anchor
our ship. We must put out to sea, and be contented to be forever toss-
ing there, without coming to anchoring ground or toa harbour.

But I shall be asked: ‘ Whether there is not. such a thing, after all,
as discrepancy of diction and style, which is so great as to be decisive
against sameness of authorship?” . Undoubtedly there is. And yet,
there are many cases of this nature, where a cautious man will be slow
to decide on such a ground. Who does not know, as has already been
intimated, the contradictory and confident judgments that have been pro-
claimed respecting the book of Deuteronomy; the prologue and epi-
logue of Job and the speeches of Elihu; many of the Psalms; almost
one half of Isaiah; the larger portion of Zechariah; the first two chap-
ters of Matthew; the 21st chapter of John; the epistle to the Ephe-
sians; the pastoral epistles of Paul; the epistle to the Hebrews, and
many other parts of the sacred books? Did not Wolf persuade half of
Europe, a few years since, that many parts of the Iliad were spurious,
and came from hands much later than Homer’s? There is no end of
this, and the like. Any author of talent, who has any variety in his
thoughts, diction, and phraseology, always exposes himself to a charge
of the like kind. And there are charges enough before the world, which
are of such a nature as should teach us great caution and wariness in
respect to deciding upon such grounds. It is not, it cannot be, an easy
thing to determine how much a writer may differ from his former self,
when he takes up a new theme, and is himself placed in circumstances
that are altogether peculiar. Writers of some eminence in criticism
could be easily named, who have distinguished, for example, the first
chapter of Isaiah into three different coripositions, and seem even to
doubt whether they are to be attributed to the same author. And so of
many other compositions in the Old Testament and in the New. Vo-
gel, for example, assigns different portions of the Apocalypse to differ-
ent authors. In particular, he finds such a diversity from the rest of the
book in the epistles to the seven churches, that he cannot imagine they
came from the same hand as the remainder of the Apocalypse. Bleek
assigns chap. xii—xxi. to a period different from that of the preceding
part of the book. But Schott and Ewald and Liicke all regard such
views as destitute of any probability. How now can the subjective
feelings and taste of different men constitute a standard on which we
can rely? It does not follow, indeed, that there is 7 true taste, because

420 § 23, RESULT.

there is so often a false one; no true judgment and criticism, because
haste and rashness so often usurp their place. But it does follow, that,
taught by examples of this kind almost without number, we should pro-~
ceed slowly and moderately and cautiously in such matters; specially
when we are in opposition to all historical and traditionary evidence.
Who does not know, that the book of Ecclesiastes, for example, has not
only been assigned to some author much later than Solomon, but that
it has been set down by many deep into Rabbinic times, on the alleged
ground of its Chaldeo-Rabbinie style. Yet very recently Herzfeld has
shown, that only some half a dozen words in it have any claim to be so
ranked; and even some of these have a doubtful claim of this nature.
That Solomon wrote it, is not indeed probable, on many grounds. Yet
the diction and phraseology are much less decisive of this, than has
been supposed by many for these some sixty or seventy years. The
simple truth is, that first impressions on such subjects are not to be
much relied upon. It needs a wide acquaintance with diction and
phraseology, -with the circle of common language and what is peculiar
to this or that author, to decide with any just claim to credence and re-
spect. Many and many a judgment of this kind is passed, without the
patient and careful and protracted examination which is requisite. How
can we trust to such decisions?

I allow with all readiness, that no one can read through the Gospel
and Epistle of John continuously, and then read the Apocalypse, with-
out a distinct and somewhat strong feeling of discrepance between the
manner of these books. The Apocalypse introduces him into a world
entirely new. Vision and symbol and trope and supernatural agents
are everywhere to be seen, and little else besides them can be found.
This difference of position, and of theme, and of object, is not at first
fully appreciated. We refer the striking discrepancy rather to the man-
ner of the writer himself than to his theme. By degrees, however, we
may begin to bring this into the account.. We perceive the Hebrew
idiom everywhere—the close following in the steps of Daniel, and Eze-
kiel, and Zechariah. We begin, at least we should begin, to make all
due allowance for this. Finally we come to passages and expressions
which will, here and there, compare well with John’s Gospel or Epistles
We even find some very striking resemblances, such as the weezvgie,
the gurog, and others. We find that the discrepancies, on further ex-
amination, have been greatly magnified ; that they have been pushed to
an excess, which, if we might argue in the same way, would destroy the.
evidence of genuineness as to ¢ any one of Paul’s epistles. We find the
writer cooped up, by such rules of er iticism, into bounds so narrow, that
differences in the modes of expression or diction, in relation to the same
subjects, are not allowed him. He is constrained to tread the same

§ 23. RESULT. 421

rounds—to grind in the same mill the same grain, and always to produce
the same identical quality of flour. Such is the result of arguing con-
fidently in the way that many have lately done, from internal evidence
of diction and of style, against the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse.

And now, once more: What says critical conscience and judgment ?

I cannot speak for others. Mine says, that the arguments from sim-
ilitude of diction, phraseology, and thought, in the» Apocalypse, all due
allowances being made for the very different nature of the composition,
go as far, or nearly as far, toward rendering sameness of authorship pro-
bable, as the arguments of the like nature from the discrepancies go to
show a diversity of authorship. I do not say that the latter are not
more numerous, if we take them as they have been adduced and relied
upon. But have we not seen, in the course of the preceding examina-
tion, how many of them are without any solid basis? I repeat it, that
no epistle of Paul can stand such a process. Why then should we rely
upon it with so much confidence here ?

But allowing that there is an apparent balance in favour of diversity
of authorship, so far as diction and style are concerned ; is it not, at all
events, a small balance? Is not the simplicity of the construction of
sentences throughout the Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse, a striking
evidence in favour of the probability of the same authorship? | It will
not be seriously contended, that all the great features of Christian doc-
trine- are not the same in both books. Nor will the possibility, that
John may have been evangelist, a writer of epistles, and a prophet or
poet, be called in question by reasonable men. The particular affection
which Jesus manifested toward him, is evidence that he possessed strik-
ing qualities ; and he may, therefore, have been called to act in different
and important offices.

In a word; I deem the internal evidence, on which so much reliance
is placed, as of quite too dubious a nature to be entitled to full confi-
dence. Considered in and by itself, and without any reference to the
historical testimony, I should regard it as undecisive ; although my mind
might be perplexed by it. But when we take into the account, what is
really matter of fact, that in all antiquity there is not a trace of any re-
liable Adstorical testimony against the Johannean origin of the Apoca-
lypse; how are we to set aside all this, the best and surest kind of evi-
dence, and decide against the apostolic origin merely on the ground of
a supposed balance in favour of such a decision, from the internal evi-
dence of diction and phraseology and course of thought? I cannot so
decide, without giving up the Pauline origin of 1 Ep. to the Corinthians.
There is a number of books in the New Testament canon, which have
less decisive evidence in their favour than the Apocalypse. There are
few indeed that have more or even as much historical evidence. Let

422 § 24, EXAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS
*

us be consistent. We must either accede to the apostolic origin of the
Apocalypse, or show good reason why we do not. The alleged discre-
pancies of style, etc., do not, on the whole, seem to me to amount to

such a reason. .

With all the evidence that ts before me from history, and all from dic-
tion, style, and course of thought, I feel compelled to believe, that THE
BALANCE IS DECIDEDLY IN FAVOUR OF AN APOSTOLIC ORIGIN.

§ 24. Brief examination of other views respecting authorship.

We have seen that the Alogi, in the second century, and probably
Caius, attributed the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. But to say nothing of
the religious views of Cerinthus, so entirely at variance with much that is
in the Apocalypse, there is not the remotest probability that the churches
of Asia, omitting the mention of others, would have received a book from
Cerinthus, and consented to regard it as the work of John the apostle.
One may say-what he pleases about the number of apocryphal books
in the early periods of the church, and the facility with which a few of
them found admission to some of the churches, yet the state of the New
Testament canon shows, that reasoning founded on such allegations can-
not have much force in the case before us. Where is the book in the
New Testament, that was not deemed apostolical, either directly or indi-
rectly? By tndirect apostolical books, I mean such books as those of
Mark and Luke. The authors of these were apostolical men; and so
the ancients named them. Yet totally improbable as the allegation is,
that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse, in recent times we find an Oeder,
a Semler, a Stroth, a Merkel, a Corrodi, and others, admitting and de-
fending it. But this mode of criticism has now gone by, and no further
effort is needed in order to refute it. See pp. 336 seq, and 339 seq.
above, respecting the Alogi and Caius.

Others, in recent times, because the author of the Apocalypse is, in
many of the Mss., named @eddoyog in the inscription to the book, have
made the supposition, that the John who wrote the book, was some per-
son otherwise unknown to us, but who, by his title, is distinguished from
John the apostle. But this title is of suspicious authority, and at all
events originated in the church long after the Apocalypse was written ;
and when applied to the author of the Apocalypse, it was meant merely
to designate John as proposing and vindicating the doctrine of the @Ogog
Aoyos. Ballenstedt, the author of the supposition before us, never made,
so far as I can learn, any converts of eminence to his opinion.

Others, in ancient and modern times, have assigned the Apocalypse
to John the presbyter at Ephesus ; who is mentioned by Papias, as one
from whom he obtained material for his Exegesis. Dionysius of Alex-

a

RESPECTING AUTHORSHIP. N 428
P *

andria conjectured that this John might have written the Apocalypse,
but he did not affirm it. Eusebius, in his perplexity about the author.
of the book, suggests the same idea; Bleek, De Wette, Paulus, Cred-
ner and others, have leaned the same way. (See in Cred. Einleit. p.
733). But this has already been amply discussed in § 17; and no re-
petition of such a discussion is here needed. The more I reflect on this
opinion, the more improbable and uncertain it seems to be. Liicke and
Schott have not ventured to adopt it.

It is a matter of some interest to inquire, what these last named and
more sober men, as well as much better informed in matters pertaining
to the Apocalypse, have thought and said in respect to the authorship of
the book. Schott (p. 484 Isag.) has given us his view in a few words.
In substance it is as follows: ‘John, while at Patmos, had visions of
such a nature as the Apocalypse relates. These he afterwards wrote
down, for his own use, in the Aramaean-Hebrew of the times. Some
one of the disciples and friends of John, being permitted to read this re-
cord, translated it into Greek, making such additions to it, and such ar-
rangements of its contents, as gave the book its present artificial shape.
At the same time, the new editor expanded many of the thoughts and
descriptions, so as to please his own judgment or fancy. The book thus
constituted, was substantially John’s; but the form and manner and dic-
tion often differed from those of John, as exhibited in his Greek works.
In this way we may account both for the discrepancies between the
Apocalypse and John, and also for the similitudes. The latter are tru-
ly Johannean; and the former owe their peculiarities to the Greek edi-
tor of the work.’

Thus Schott, with all the gravity becoming the occasion. And now
the proof? Nota trace of such an opinion can be found on record.
No ancient critic ever dreamed of such an origin of the book. Not a
hint can be found that the Apocalypse ever was written in Hebrew.
The internal evidence is strongly against it. The whole then is mere
conjecture. Can this guide us in a matter like the present ?

‘ But,’ says Schott, ‘the internal evidence is so against John the evan-
gelist as author, that almost any supposition is as probable as this; and
the one in question is not an unnatural one, while it seemingly reconciles
all the discrepancies that now exist. Why is not a supposition, which
brings about harmony among so many discords, altogether probable and
worthy of reception ?’ :

My answer would be, that it reconciles only a small part of the dis-
cords. How does it reconcile the historic testimony in favour of the apos-
tle John, which is so uniform during the first three centuries, and which
must be more worthy of reliance than any other, although the possibility
of mistake be admitted? And the discords—are not a great proportion

424 XAMINATION OF OTHER VIEWS

*
of them dependent merely ot the mode of reasoning from diction and
style 2 “And has not this mode plainly admitted and adopted much that
is inconclusive and unsatisfactory? How then can we receive and ad-
a most important conclusion in criticism, without other evidence than
’ that which rests on such a basis? More might easily be said ; but T re-
serve it for the sequel, in which Licke’s similar hypothesis will come
before us for examination.

Liicke presents the subject in a manner circumstantially different.
He does not suppose John to have committed anything of his visions
to writing. But ‘John related them, on his return from Patmos, to some
of the Asiatic churches; as Paul told of his to the Corinthians, 2 Cor.
xi. Some intelligent friend and disciple of John reduced this narration
to writing, preserving in many cases the Johannean style and manner,
and in other cases employing his own. Hence the diversity and resem-
blances. Both are accounted for on sucha ground.’

Candidly he says, at the close of his exposition: “ Tobe sure this is
only a hypothesis, for the support of which all traces of historical tes-
timony are wanting ;” p. 391. But he goes on to say in its defence,
that it reconciles all the contradictory phenomena of the book. Then,
in the next place, we have other apocryphal works of the early times,
which were composed in a like way, i. e. by prefixing apostolic names
to them. He suggests that no one has yet shown, that the book of Dan-
iel and 2 Peter do not belong to the same category. He tells us, that
the early Christians thought much more of the subject-matter of a book,
than they did about the author. The Apocalypse appeared to be from
an authentic source ; it addressed itself originally to the exigencies of
the times ; and it came into favour in these circumstances, without any
definite critical inquiries.

But why then — if books were so easily admitted into the Canon of
the New Testament — why were not the book of Enoch, the Testa-
ment of the twelve Patriarchs, the fourth of Ezra, the Epistle of Clem-
ent of Rome, and other early books of a similar kind, admitted into the
Canon? If the answer be, that some did admit them, yet the reply is
at hand. By the great mass of Christians in the church catholic, they
were not admitted. They were sometimes read for edification ; but not
as proper Scripture. The New Testament, in regard to this matter,
speaks for itself. It speaks not less by its narrow limits as to the num-
ber of authors, than it does by the matter which it contains. Where are
the conceits, the superstitions, the silly narrations, the puerilities of the
apocryphal books, to be found in the New Testament? ‘The difference
between the two classes is exceedingly great. It has often seemed to
me, while reading the apocryphal books, that they bear on their very
face the stamp of condemnation. I can hardly imagine a more effect-

425

ual way of convincing one’s self of the marked superiority of the New
Testament, than to read and diligently compare with it the early apoc-
ryphal books. What was it, now, that occasioned a difference so strik-
ing? And how came the churches to fix upon the canonical books, a

to dismiss the others from all competition with them? «I can perceive
only one way of answering these: questions.’ Tertullian and Irenaeus
have indeed so often answered them, and brought out to view the prin-
ciples of the early church as to» canonical books, that any other answer
is unnecessary.

But there are other difficulties in the way of wdhinittine Liicke’s hypo-
thesis ; difficulties to which. he has indeed adverted (p- 393 seq.), but
which he has not satisfactorily removed. We have seen that the Apoc-
alypse must in all probability have been composed about A. D. 68, i.e.
some thirty years before the death of the apostle John. We know, also,
that the churches in Asia Minor, addressed in the Apocalypse, were
within the circle of John’s evangelical labours. Wecan have no rea-
sonable doubt, that the Apocalypse was first published and read by the
churches to whom it was addressed. The epistles and book itself pur-
port to be from the pen of a John in banishment at Patmos—from a
John who had the care and supervision of the churches addressed by
him. It is impossible that the alleged writer of the book should not
have been well known to the Asiatic churches of that time. If the
Apocalypse was published among them either before or after the return
from exile in Patmos, in either case, when John had returned and re-
sumed his usual active labours among: these same churches, could any-
thing have been-easier than for them to inquire and ascertain, whether
the book addressed and commended to them was really apostoli¢ or not?
‘Tt was instinctive to make such inquiries. The churches were solemnly
addressed; warned, reproved, and commanded ; the book was commend-
ed to their perusal, by the promise of blessings to the diligent and care-
ful reader, and the threat of curses to the negligent one, and to every
one who should venture ‘to tamper: with its contents. How could the
churches do less than inquire, whether there was any good foundation
for all this, and what their obligations in reality were in respect to the
book? Inquiry in this case must terminate in certain knowledge.
There was no room for conjectural opinion.

Have we then one word, from any of these churches, of doubt re-
specting the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse? Not one. Papias,
near the close of the first century, had plainly read the book, and made
it the basis of his millennial opinions. Andreas and Arethas assure us,
that Papias regarded it as the work of John ; and the very use he made
of it serves to confirm this. Papias was indeed a great lover of anec-
dote, and had a taste for the marvellous. But the extracts which Eu-

VOL. I. "O4

426

« mn

sebius has given us fromhis Efnyyoes show, that he was aware of the
pains necessary to distinguish true from false reports. Eusebius ‘nis
self, although he avers that Papias is oyxgog coy vor as to his millen-.
nial credulity, calls him “ Loyizarog and well skilled in the Seriptures.”
It is not to be supposed that the bishop of Hierapolis, who was. with-
in the circle of John’s supervision, had. a different opinion about the
author of the Apocalypse from that of the:churches addressed. . Such
a supposition would be utterly improbable. Ina word; the churches ~
addressed in the manner of the Apocalypse, and having opportunity to
know by what authority, must have inquired and known who: it was
that addressed them. Report —tradition—from them. downwards
through all the early ages,'has assigned the Apocalypse to the apostle
Johnses. 4 pasdg Ci esti ;

Then, if we even put this construction aside, how are we to account
for it, that any man within the. circle of John’s official duties, should
venture to assume his name and use his authority? If the book was
honestly written by another John, why has he not told us who he was,
so as to be distinguished from the great apostle? If another John were
the author, how could such a tradition. spring up among the very church-
es addressed, and be perpetuated, that John the evangelist wrote the
Apocalypse? . If he did not—how could any other man be rash enough
to suppose that he could escape detection? If John the apostle neither
wrote the book, nor procured another to write it, could any other per-
son believe that he himself had authority sufficient. among the Asiatic
churches, to. induce them to receive the book as authoritative, while it
was known to be factitious? And then as to the apostle John—could
it be that he would suffer an imposition of this kind to be practised upon
the churches under his care, when it was in his power at. any moment
to expose it? If we say, as some have done: ‘ The leading thoughts
and visions were substantially his, because he had entertained them ;
and what was superadded was not inconsistent with his views and feel- .
ings, and so he let it, pass in silence,’ this argument is spoiled by the
question: Is this the. way of openness and. sincerity and integrity?
Why should John encourage others to act a concealed and borrowed
part, in so important a matter? Why did not John, if he meant to pub-
lish by another hand, himself superintend the performance, and thus
sanction the whole? How could it be expected that a fictitious book,
of such high claims, and whose contents were professedly so important,
would gain currency in a region where it was perfectly easy to learn its
genetic history? Ido not say that such things as Liicke supposes to
have taken place, were impossible ; but how can I say less, than that
they are altogether improbable ? ae

Licke has suggested, that if it could only be shown that the Apoca-

# a

§ 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 4979

te
lypse was written after the death of John, then the whole hypothesis
which he has proposed could be easily maintained. ‘In this way he
thinks that John xxi. was added, after the death of the Evangelist.
But we need not discuss this ; for Liicke has no doubt that the Apoca-
lypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. So, if the Apoca-
lypse came from another hand than that of the apostle, it must have
been some thirty years before his death, during which period all the
ehurches of that region might at any time know who wrote the book,
and to what authority it was entitled. Nothing can be more certain,
than that the holy earnestness and sincerity everywhere developed. in
the book, are real and not assumed. I cannot conceive of a fictitious
writer of that:day, who could preserve such a tone and manner through-
out. Nor can I imagine how the dishonesty of'employing the apostle’s
credit to sanction and render current his work, could have been ap-
proved by John, or passed by in silence. The whole matter is attend-
ed with too many improbabilities to have claim on our confidence. ‘The
problem — if it even be such — that John the apostle wrote the Apoca-
lypse, with all its difficulties about diction and phraseology, is quite
easy and simple to my mind, in comparison with such a problem as that
of Schott and Liicke. 2

§ 25. Unity of the book ; different Opinions exanuned. .

‘Grotius, so far as I can ascertain, was the first to suggest that the 3
Apocalypse is a series of visions, written successively, and at periods
somewhat distant from each other. He grounds this opinion on the dif-
férent accounts we have, in ancient times, of the period of John’s exile,
viz., under Claudius, Nero, and Domitian’; and also the different places
at which it is said to have been written, viz., Patmos and Ephesus.
He assumes the equal credibility of these accounts, and supposes, in
order to reconcile“all difficulties, that all of them are true, and that John,
at different times in exile, may have written some portions of the Apoca-
lypse at each time, or soon after; and that some of it may have been
written at Patmos, and some’at Ephesus. All this seems to him to be
confirmed by the internal divisions of the Apocalypse, e. g. 1:9. 4: 1.
14: 1, ete. The first eleven chapters, he thinks, must’ have been writ-
ten before the destruction of Jerusalem. ~The last part, specially from
chap. xv. onward, must have been written at the time of Vespasian, and
Titus, and Domitian. To make out this, he begins the list of the seven
kings, mentioned in Rev. 17: 10, with Claudius, because this, according
to Epiphanius, is the first date of John’s exile. He divides the whole
book into some ten different compositions. :

That the Apocalypse was all written in one day, or at a single sitting,

&

428 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE,

no one will reasonably suppose. But that the book is a mere collection
of different visions, written at periods widely separated from each other,
cannot well be credited by any one who examines the unity of its plan,
and the mutual correspondence of its respective parts. Above all, if
the idea of trichotomy in it be admitted, (see § 7 above), the “hypothesis
of Grotius is entirely inadmissible. The general: unity of the -book is
an indispensable ingredient. Hh Remap red

-Various as the reports of antiquity.are about the time and place:of
writing the Apocalypse, yet no ancient writer has given a hint that the
book was composed at different times. And as to-the book itself, there
are indeed many transitions in it, in.turning from the consideration of
one object. to another. The most remarkable is at:the close of chap. xi.
Yet the book gives no intimation of anything more than a mere suc-
cession of. visions, a succession being necessary to the distinctness of
each; it intimates nothing of long intervals of time. between them. It
is enough to say, that the nature of the plan requires sequency or suc-
cession of revelations; but there is nothing in the book which might not
have been written as well in A. D. 68, and within a short period, as
afterwards. Grotius’ manner of reckoning the kings or emperors is
wholly gratuitous, and indeed unnatural. There must be some obvious
starting point for such a reckoning; and what so obvious as that of the

“first emperor? The hypothesis of Grotius does not, indeed, call in
question the unity of authorship, but only the unity of time as to the
composition, and, almost of course, the. unity of general design in the
book. Few, however, have adopted the hypothesis in. question; and
in the present state of criticism in respect to the book, still fewer will
be disposed to adopt it. There is nothing in the Apocalypse which
urges upon us the belief that it is miscellaneous. The book is of a
stamp so uniform throughout, as would seem to forbid the admission of
such a view. _ Compositions of different periods, and on different occa-
sions, could not be made so to chime together as do those of the Apoca-
lypse. This will be further illustrated in the sequel.

VoGEL, in his VII. Commentationes Apocalypticae, has gone be-
yond Grotius. He not only ‘supposes that the Apocalypse was written
at different: periods, but by different persons. That. portion of the
Apocalypse included in 1: 9—3: 22, i. e. the seven epistles, he thinks
was written some. years after chap, iv—xi, and probably by the same
hand, although he affirms the ‘style of the epistles to be purer Greek.
John the apostle, he supposes, may have written these parts of the book,

while Rey. 1: 1—8 and xii—xxii. were written at a later period and by

another person, i. e. by, John the presbyter, nak
All these suppositions are built on alleged intervals,of time between
the writing of different parts of the book, and on the assumed discrep-

DIFFERENT OPINIONS EXAMINED. 499

ancies of style. I shall merely glance at some of the leading alle-
gations. « Ren ote .

‘Chap. iv—xi. must have been written before the persecution of Ne-
ro, for no allusion is made in it to heathen persecutions.’—But conced-
ing this last assertion, it would only be conceding that the author, who
first follows out the Jewish persecution (iv—xi.), and then the heathen
one (xii—xix.), has not intermingled them. Why should he? Yet if
any one will read carefully chaps. vi. vii, he will find more than one im-
plication, that persecution exists out of Judea as well asin it. Vogel
thinks that the author of Rev. iv—xi. must bea different person from
the author of xii—xxii, because the former gives no intimation of Christ’s
future earthly kingdom. If he means by this, a visible terrestrial reign
of Christ on earth, as I presume he does, I find this disclosed as little in
the second part of the Apocalypse as in the first. All depends on Vo-
gel’s exegesis. But apart from this; why should ‘the author of the
Apocalypse mention or allude.to everything in the first part of his book,
~ which he has brought forward in the last part? Will any one demand,
that he should merely repeat in the second part what he has said in the
. first? But more'than all, is there not in Rey. 11: 15 an express re-
cognition of Christ’s kingdom and reign? Yea, a recognition of the
same kind of kingdom and reign which chap. xx. describes? And does
not chap. 5: 10 make a reference to: the same kingdom—one which is
not to be mistaken? .And does not Rey. 11: 17, 18, exhibit the same
sentiment? Nothing can be more unfounded than this objection of Vo-
gel.. The kingdom to be set-up is so evidently the same throughout
the book, that this very circumstance is one of the arguments in favour
of its unity. '

When Vogel, in order to carry his point, suggests, that there is a
great difference of style between chap. iv—xi. and the remainder of the
book ; that the former exhibits a truly poetical spirit, while the latter
shows great indigence and even poverty of thought; that the former ex-
hibits appropriate order and congruity, while the latter brings to view
much that is inappropriate, makes useless repetitions, and presents ima-
gery revolting to the taste; it is quite plain, that all this depends on his
subjective feelings and taste. Where, in the secondpart of the Apoca-
lypse, is there anything that approaches so near the incredible and the
monstrous, as the locusts and the horsemen in chap. ix. of the first part ?
As to the rest, it seems quite plain to me,’ that there is, in the latter
part, an advance upon the variety of expression and imagery in the
first part. Conformity to the author’s general plan has, indeed, occasion-
ed some considerable resemblance between'the description of the events
that follow the sounding of the trumpets (viii.), and of those that suc-
ceed the pouring out ofthe vials (xvi.).. But in many other respects

x

430 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE,

there is a great variety of representation; see xiv. XVil. XViil. Rixd
Even Vogel himself is obliged to confess, that he cannot point out any
striking differences between the style of the two main parts of the Apoca-
lypse.. And in fact one may well say, that if there ever was evidence
of one and the same hand, which might be gathered from the tone and.
manner of different parts of any composition, that evidence is strikingly-
exhibited here. A difference of objects presented to the mind, and.
the completion of a regular plan, must of course bring new and varying
subjects before the writer’s mind; and this seems to be all on which
there is any room to build the alleged discrepancies. But this is a basis
quite too narrow to sustain them. How easy it would be to prove that
the Epistle to the Romans, or the first Epistle to the Corinthians, was:
written by different persons—how easy, I mean, on just such ‘grounds
as Vogel assumes—every one who reads them critically must see. |

In order to confirm his view, Vogel appeals to the alleged fact, that
the last part of the Apocalypse often ¢mitates chap. iv—xi.; and this
imitation he makes out from the-plain and frequent connection between
the two parts of the book, and the mutual allusions that exist. But how
such a connection can prove a difference of authorship, one cannot well
see. Could not the same author—would he not—connect the different
parts of his work by allusions to what. had preceded, and by assuming it,
at proper times, as the basis of further remark, or the subject of farther
explication? And this is the amount of all that John has done. In de-
veloping the progress of the final plagues, under the seven trumpets and —
under the seven vials, he moves in a similar circle in many respects,
and yet is cireumstantially diverse. I cannot discern any of the affec-
tation of an imitator, in the latter part of the book. On the contrary,
it seems plain to me, that the freedom of thought and expression is even
more ample and complete than in the former part. ~ et

In a word, nearly the whole of Vogel’s objections to-the unity of the
Apocalypse rests upon his exegesis and his subjective taste and judg=
ment about style. I cannot resist the impression, that in neither of these
respects is he a safe model, or entitled to: much distinction. _ His Dis-
sertations, which were seven years in a course of composition and pub=.
lication, have not attracted much notice ; and they bid fair to be soon
forgotten. Bleek, in his Dissertation on the Apocalypse (Theol. Zeit-
schrift.von Schleiermacher, ete.), and Liacke (Einleit. p: 429 seq.), have
minutely examined the particulars of Vogel’s arguments, and shown
them to be without force. It is unnecessary to be minute here. The

altaye argument in favour of unity will be presented in the sequel ;
and if this is well founded, such objections fall tothe ground. of course.

Brevx (Diss. above referred to) after all his criticism on Vogel, has as
sumed ground which ‘seems not to be any more inviting than that of the

-

?

DIFFERENT OPINIONS EXAMINED. 431

author'whom he has examined. He assumes, in the first place, that Rev.
17: 10. points to Vespasian as the then reigning emperor ; and of course
that chaps. xii—xxii. were written after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Chap: iv—xi., he maintains at the same time, were written before the
destruction of that city. . Of course, although he attributes both parts of
the book to the same author, yet he supposes a considerable interval of
time to elapse between the writing of the two parts.

~ But all this depends entirely on his exegesis of Rev..17: 10. In or-
der to make out that Vespasian is the reigning emperor at that time, he
omits Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, in his list of emperors... I must refer
the reader to the Commentary and Excursus.on this passage, for confu-
tation of this exegesis... Licke has also confuted it sufficiently, Einleit.
p- 252 seq.

But Bleek has ventured to take a bolder step. He calls our attention
to the striking transition at the end of chap. xii—a transition to a state
of things entirely new. Hitherto Christ in his glorified state only had
- been-exhibited ; but now the writer goes back and begins with his na-
tivity, the persecution of him, and his ascension to glory. There must
have been some strong reason for such a regressive step. And what was
it? Bleek answers this ‘question in a way that one would scarcely ex-
pect. He suggests that the writer composed iv—xi. antecedently to the
destruction of Jerusalem; that the seventh and last trumpet, as it was
at first and originally described, was followed by the coming of Christ
and the complete establishment of his kingdom. With such a descrip-
tion this first portion of the present book, as he thinks, originally ended.
‘But time passed on; Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jewish nation
crushed; and still the kingdom of Christ did not come. ‘The author,
‘perceiving this, abscinded the closing part of chap. xi, which respected
the coming and kingdom of Christ, and commenced de novo his second

part with the heathen enemies of the church, whose destruction was yet.

future. So the last and larger part of the Apocalypse took its rise at a
later period than the first ;. and it arose from the efforts to correct what
had been a mistake in the original close of the first part.
In all this, however, there is so much of mere hypothesis, yea, so
much of improbable hypothesis, that one is perplexed to know in what
‘way he can most advantageously canvass the subject. Bleek has over-
looked the substantial fact, that there are three catastrophes in the book ;
that the first series of events has a procm (chap. iv. v.) ; that the second
series, in conformity with this plan, has also a proém (chap. xii.) ; while
the third, which respects distant future events (chap. xx.), and is ex-
ceedingly brief, necessarily dispenses in the main with this. It is plain
that the author designed: to set forth to view, in the latter part of his
book, the grounds of Satan’s particular rage against Christians, and of

o

*

432 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE,

his efforts to excite bitter persecution among the heathen against them.
In order to do this, he introduces a sketch of Satan’s combats and de-
feats with and by the author of the new religion. What could be more
apposite as a proém, than matter of this kind? ‘The author meant to
set before the reader the grounds of the long protracted, bitter, and
bloody war that was excited among the heathen against Christianity,
which, with its progress and termination, constitutes the second catas-
trophe. By the proém (chap. xii.), he has made the transition from the
first to the second catastrophe very plain and palpable. He doubtless in-
tended to do this. But to determine how he could do it successfully and
with relevant matter, demanded the exercise of both taste and judgment.
Has he done amiss? Is not chap. xii. a rapid and beautiful. sketch of
the first beginnings of the Christian religion? Is there no designed con-
gruity between the exhibition of Satan’ here, and in the sequel of the
discourse ? As the beasts from the sea and from the land are both but
instruments in the hands of Satan, and are influenced by his bitter ma-
lignity, why not exhibit the causes and special grounds of that malignity ?
And particularly so, since an exhibition-of the protection vouchsafed to
the woman “clothed with the sun,” and to the man-child ‘‘ who should
rule the nations,” was cheering and. full of hope for all who were suffer-
ing from persecution.

I might object, that Bleek’s supposition degrades the aceite and
sets down its author in the rank of mere soothsayers. What less than
this is it, to represent him as finding that he had made a prediction in
language too definite, and which did not: well correspond with actual
events, and then as trying his hand a second time, and making sure to
be sufficiently indefinite to escape detection, or at any rate, putting off
fulfilment so long that his credit could not. suffer during his life time?
I know not how to reconcile the tone, and tenor, and earnestness, and
sincerity, and deep reverence for God and Christ and for all that is holy
and pure, everywhere manifested in the Apocalypse, with such a part as
Bleek supposes the author of this book to have acted. With my views
of chap. iv. vy. and xii, as mere proéms to the two leading parts of the
book, I find no difficulty in the transition itself, or in the nature of it, at
the beginning of chap. xii.

From these differing views about the time and manner in which the
Apocalypse was originated, let us now turn'to the consideration of the

evidences of its Uniry. If these are satisfactory, eas will be a sufficient
answer to all the different hypotheses.

(1) Were I to follow the simple persuasion of my own mind, in pre-
senting these evidences, I should rank, as first of all,» the characteristics
of style and idiom ; oo these are in all respects pages as same
throughout the book. j

+
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF IT. 433
I am aware that the reply to this will be, that what I allege is a mat-
ter of taste and judgment, and nota simple matter of fact; and that
if I cast myself upon these, I must of course permit others to judge
for themselves on the same grounds. I know well that they have
in fact done so, and have decided differently. But still I must ap-
peal from this judgment; and I am ready to make. the appeal to every
unprejudiced man on earth, who has no favourite theory to maintain,
and who is competent to make an appropriate investigation, whether
there is any book in the Old Testament or the New, that is even so
strongly marked with a style peculiar to itself, and uniform throughout,
as the Apocalypse. Perhaps we might except.the Gospel and. Epistle
of John. There is a Hebraism lying upon the face of the whole Apoca-
lypse, a similarity (yet not a mere imitation) to the Old Testament
prophets ; a universal fulness of symbol and trope, even in communicat-
ing the most common ideas ; a remarkable simplicity and strait-forward-
ness in the construction of sentences ; a similar use of particles such as
xo, etc., and a similar omission of certain ones usual elsewhere, such as «
ovy and ¢; the like transitions in discourse by a wete tadza and asim-
ple ze¢; a like omission of all exact. notation of time when the visions
took place; the same solemn, deep, earnest tone of discourse, whether in
describing, or promising, or threatening; the same apparent consciousness
of certainty as to all which is said, and the utterance of all with confi-
dence that it cannot be gainsayed; the same claim of authority to speak
with full assurance; the like vivid alternations of light and shade; the
like rapid transitions, seemingly abrupt and without preparation—all
these and more of the like kind, develope themselves in every part of
the book. This is not opinion but fact—fact which no attentive and
discerning reader will now venture to deny. But to all this must be
added, (and it is an important part of the evidence in question), that
there is a sameness of ¢diom throughout the book. Ineed not re-produce
the evidence of this. The reader may find it fully exhibited in § 15
above, where the object is to produce and explain the characteristic idi-
oms of the Apocalypse. As it is quite plain, ‘that these idioms are scat-
tered with a somewhat equal hand throughout the whole book, we may
well ask: How ean it be rationally supposed, that different writers would
have agreed in these peculiarities, many of which are very minute, and
escape any but the closest observation ? ‘To suppose this would be un-
- natural and improbable. We are not therefore at liberty to make such
a supposition, unless some absolute necessity should compel us to do it.
But who can show us any such necessity? If I may speak my own
convictions in relation to the style of the Apocalypse, I should say, that
I have never read a book, the style and idiom of which bear stronger
marks of unity of authorship than those of the one in question.
VOL. 1 ay) ;

%
434 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE,

But this, it will be said, is of avail only against such men as Vogel,
who assume different authors ; but not against the theories of Grotius
and Bleek, who only suppose different periods of time, and those of some
length, to have intervened between the different parts of the book. I
concede that what has thus far been said, goes mainly to show unity of
authorship only, not unity of time. But there are evidences of the lat-
ter, which seem to me so satisfactory that I know not how we can well
withhold our assent.

(2) The different parts of the Apocalypse mutually refer to each oth-
er; and in such a way, and so often, that the natural conclusion is, that
they are parts of one whole, originally designed as a whole, and exe-
cuted in a manner correspondent with the design.

I begin with the Epistles to the churches, as connected with the other
parts of the book.. These are naturally the most distinct of any part 5
and if a foreign hand is disclosed by any portion of the book, it might
naturally be sought here. The part which apparently commences this
portion of the Apocalypse, is chap. 1: 9; the end of it is 3: 22. While
most of the introductory sentences in each epistle have a direct reference
to the description of Christ in 1: 11—16, thus plainly connecting with
the epistles the paragraph in 1: 9—20, yet there is one epistle which
plainly refers to 1: 5 in the general introduction ; see and comp. 3: 14.
I should add to this, the reference in 3: 1 to the seven spirits which are
mentioned in 1:4. The proleptic references in the epistles to the main
body of the book, (for we must regard them as proleptic or anticipative

-if.we begin the comparison with the epistles), are numerous ; e. g. the
second death, 2: 11, comp. 20: 14. 21:8; the sharp sword from the Sa-
viour’s mouth, 2: 16, comp. 19: 15, 21; the new name understood only
by the Saviour, 2: 17. 3: 12, comp. 19: 12; reward according to works,
2: 23, comp. 20: 12, 13; the king Messiah ruling with a rod of iron, 2:
27, comp. 12: 5. 19: 15; the morning star, 2: 28, comp. 22: 16; com-
ing as a thief, 3: 8, comp. 16: 15; white robes of the saints, 3: 4, 18,
comp. 4: 4. 6: 11. 7: 9, 13; book of life, 3: 5, comp. 20: 12. 21: 27; 1
come quickly, 8: 11, comp. 1: 8. 22: 7, 12.

It will be a more easy and obvious way of making this comparison, if
the reader should reverse the order of the references; and then, sup-
posing the epistles to have been written before chaps. iv—xxii, consider
the mutual relations and parallelisms as arising from a reference to the
epistles made subsequently, and when the writer was in the progress of
composing the work. The great point aimed at is, to show that the re-
lations and dependencies of one part on another are so numerous, as to
imply a unity of plan and execution.

Let us proceed from the epistles to the seven churches, to the second
great division of the Apocalypse, viz. chap. iv—xi. Does this stand inti-
mately connected with the preceding and following parts of the book ?

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF IT. 435

The very outset necessarily involves connection with a preceding
part, viz. werd cadra sidov x. c 1. after this or after these things.
And what are the things? Surely those which the preceding vision
and context embraces, viz. 1: 9—3: 22. So it would seem altogether
probable, that the epistolary part of the Apocalypse was actually writ-
ten first. At any rate, the writer had the design that it should appear
to have been so written. But further. Zhe first voice mentioned in
4: 1 refers plainly to 1:10. Ib. the things that must be hereafter must
be referred to 1:19. In 4: 2, [was in the Spirit, comp. 1: 10. 21: 10;
out of the throne were lightnings, thunderings, and voices, 4: 5. 8: 5,
comp. 16: 18 seven spirits of God, 4: 5. 5: 6, comp. 1: 4; sea of glass
before the throne, 4: 6, comp. 15: 2; which was, and is, and is to come,
4: 8, comp. 1: 4; le who liveth forever and ever, 4: 9. 5: 14, comp. 1:
18; the 6iCa, root-shoot of David, 5: 5, comp. 22:16; sung a new song,
5: 9, comp. 14: 3; every kindred and tongue and people and nation, 6:
9. 7: 9. 11: 9, comp. 14: 6; made us kings and priests to God, 5: 6,
comp. 20: 6; in 19: 4, the four beasts and twenty-four elders plainly re-
fer to 4: 4, 6. 5:14; the conqueror on a white horse, 6: 2, comp. 19: 11;
the crown on the head of the conqueror, 6: 2, comp. 14: 14; those who
are slain for the word. of God and the testimony which they held fast,
6: 9, comp..20: 4. 19:10; a great earthquake after opening the sixth
seal, 6: 12, the like after the seventh trumpet, 16:18; every island and
mountain moved from its place, 6: 14, comp. 16: 20; the great day of
wrath, 6:17, and (which is equivalent) the great day of God Almighty,
16: 14; God shall dwell among his people, 7: 15, comp. 21: 4;, God
shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, 7: 17, comp. 21: 4; the sea
turned into blood, 8: 8, comp. 16: 3; the star falls on the rivers and
fountains, 8: 10, comp. 16: 3, where the vial is poured on the same; the
bottomless pit as the habitation of all that is noisome and destructive, 9:
2 seq., comp. 17: 8; the angels of destruction at the river Euphrates,
9: 14, comp. 16: 12; sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, 9: 21,
comp. 22: 15; who made heaven and earth and the sea, 10: 6, comp.
‘14: 7; time no longer, after sounding the seventh trumpet, 10: 6, comp.
16: 17, where is the same as to seventh vial; forty and two months,
11: 2, 3, comp. 12: 6, 14. 18: 5; the beast from the bottomless pit, 11:
7, comp. 17: 8, and also 13: 1, 11, where in each case the beast comes
from the abyss below; the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom
of God and Christ, 11: 15, comp. 12: 10; small and great that fear his
name, 11:18, comp. 19:5; the temple of God in heaven opened, 11: 19,
comp. 15: 5, 8; great hail, 11: 19, comp. 16: 21.

Such is the obvious connection, as to phraseology and mode of repre-
sentation, of chap. iv—xi. with the other parts of the Apocalypse. I
need only to add a few cases more from chap. xii—xxii. of reference to

436 § 25. UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

the jirst part of the Apocalypse ; which were not included in the com-
parison of that part with the rest of the book, as made on p. 434 above.
Such are the following : ‘The voice of many waters, 14: 2. 19: 6, comp.
1: 15; appearance of Jesus like to the Son of man, 12: 14, comp. 1: 18;
the seven angels, 15: 7, comp. 1: 4; which art, and wast, and shall be,
16: 5, comp. 1: 4, 8; coming as a thief—walking naked, 16: 15, comp.
8: 4, 18; eyes like a flame of fire, 19: 12, comp. 1: 14. 2: 18; holy
city coming down from God, 21: 2, comp. 3:12; & mvevpatt, 21: 10.
17: 8, comp. 1: 10; the tree of life,-22: 2, comp. 2:7; name written
upon the saints, 22: 4. 14:1, comp. 8:12; Iam Alpha and Omega, 21:
6. 22: 13, comp. 1: 8, 11.

J am aware that this list might be easily augmented. But I do not
wish to urge all the minutiae of resemblances. The similarity is ample,
as now exhibited. And although I am apprehensive that it may be
objected to some of the examples, that they are merely the common
property of sacred language and imagery, and so might be used by any
writer who was of a religious cast of mind; yet, in nearly all the cases
presented, there is either a peculiarity in the modus of the representa-
tion, or in the connection in which it stands, that makes a resemblance
too plain to be denied between the different parts of the Apocalypse.
What can we say to such cases as the Alpha and Omega, is and was
and is to come, tree of life, and many others peculiar to the Apocalypse, «
and found in all parts of it? The same mind must have produced a
composition so entirely of the like tenor, idiom, and peculiarities through-
out.

I know it may be said, that, some friend of John, who greatly approv-
ed of his style, imitated him as closely as he could, and did this of set
purpose; and so it comes about, as Vogel assumes, that the last part of
the Apocalypse bears so strong a general resemblance to the \ preceding
parts. But I cannot assume the fact of mere imitation, in this case,
without some proof, or without some good degree of probability. There
is no urgent reason from any quarter, why we should admit a variety
of authorship; and the regular gradation and development of the book
show that the whole was composed in consequence of a plan, and in
conformity with it. I can never persuade myself, that a book of such
extraordinary earnestness and sincerity as the Apocalypse could have
been written by a mere imitator, who aimed at imposing on the world -
by coming forward in the name of another.

But I must go one step further. If the structure of the Apocalypse,
as developed in § 7 above, is well founded and matter of fact, and tré-
chotomy or triplicity pervades the plan of the book in general, and then of
all its subordinate parts, then is it absolutely certain that the book is
from one and the same mind and hand. The unity of the general plan.

§ 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT. 437

is perfectly consistent with the triplicity of the parts; while the com-
plete triplicity, on the other hand, becomes essential to the general unity.
Who could deem it possible, that another hand, different from that of
the original author, should interfere and carry out a plan so artificial
-and so nicely adjusted in all its relative parts? The thing is out of all
question.

We may reasonably settle down in-the conclusion, then, that whoever
wrote the leading part of the book, viz. chapters iv—xi., must have
written the other parts... Whether John the apostle, or the presbyter, or
the theologue (if we may reckon him a distinct person), wrote the
book, the same mind and hand must have executed the whole. No one
in all antiquity ever suspected that the book belonged to different au-
thors. Nor was there, nor is there, any good reason to suspect it.

Nor can we deem the supposition much more probable, that long in-
tervals of time took place between the composition of the different parts
of the book, admitting that it is all the work of one and the same man.
The plan is too much connected, interwoven, dove-tailed together (if I
may so speak), and the impressions and phrases and idioms, in all the
different parts of the book, bear too striking a resemblance to each other,
to permit its being rendered probable, that the author suspended his
work, during the execution of it, beyond the short periods of intermission
that are necessary in the composition of every work of any considerable
magnitude. The same general state — the same fervid glow — of mind
and imagination is plainly exhibited in all parts of the Apocalypse.

§ 26. Canonical rank and credit of the Apocalypse.

It is a matter of course, that all who have attributed the Apocalypse
te the apostle John, have ranked it among those books which are of
the highest authority, or, in other words, have placed it on a level, as to
its authority, with the Gospels and Epistles in general of the New
Testament. Such as have come to the conviction which the writer of
these sheets has expressed and assayed to defend in the preceding pages,
can have no hesitation to admit the Apocalypse among the authentic
records of the New Dispensation. Such as doubt respecting the gen-
uineness or the apostolic origin of the book, will of course assign to it
a lower place. But there may be a variety of opinion and feeling
among such persons, in regard to the proper place of this book. Those
in ancient and in modern times who. have assailed the book with con-
tumely and contempt, e. g. the Alogi and perhaps Caius anciently, and
Oeder, Corrodi, and others like them recently, have of course ranked
the Revelation among the mere figments of apocryphal productions,
and regarded it as worthy of no credit. But there has been, even from

438 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT

early times, and still is, a class of men who have doubts about the real _
Johannean origin of the Apocalypse, and yet have not ventured to cast

the book out of the canon, but have been inclined to regard it as a kind

of deutero-canonical book; to which one might appeal, however, with

entire confidence, only when he found it in accordance with the other:
books of the New Testament. It is the object of the present section,

to give some brief historic notices of the canonical credit attached to

the Apocalypse, which have not already been included in the view

that has been taken of the state of opinion among the ancients or mod-

erns, and also to make some suggestions relative to the subject of the

canonicity of the book, which could not well be introduced into the pre-

ceding historical investigations.

Licke (p. 449 seq.) remarks; that we have no very definite informa-
tion in what light the canonical authority of the Apocalypse was re-
garded by Justin, Irenaeus, etc.; and that in general, at that period
(Cent. II.), no definite and precise ideas were entertained about the na-
ture of canonical authority. The writers of that day, he says, quote
apocryphal as well as canonical books, and often in the same manner;
so that it becomes difficult for us to say how they always regarded the
one and the other.

I cannot help feeling, that there is something unfair in the manner
and even matter of this representation. Is it not true, that Justin, and
Irenaeus, and. Tertullian, beyond all question regarded the Apocalypse *
as the work of John the apostle, and therefore as a divine book? It
surely is; as the reader may see by recurring to the preceding pages.
What more is necessary to determine the rank which the book held in
their view? What more could be said of any other book of the New
Testament? If now they quote other books than the present canoni-
cal ones of the New Testament, this is only what is done every day by
religiqus writers of the present time, who admit the highest claims of
the New Testament books. Why might not the writers of the second
century quote other religious books than those of the present New Tes-
tament? The fair question is: Did they assert or claim, that the other
books which they quoted were dzspired or apostolic? Where are the
declarations of this kind? Nay more: Where is the distinction in
this respect more prominent and stringent, than. in Tertullian and Ire-
naeus? The formal and scientific discussion of canonicity had not in-
deed then commenced; but the substantial thing aimed at or accom-
plished by such a discussion, was already recognized by these writers.
The very existence of the New Testament canon, in the definite shape
which it assumed at the close of the second century, is full proof of the
correctness of this statement; at all events in regard to the church at.
large. And as to the quotation of apocryphal books, how little of this.

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 439

there is in Clement of Rome, Justin, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, must be
obvious to every attentive reader.

‘When Liicke complains, that there was no scientific investigation of
the canonical credit of the Apocalypse in the second century, or in the
early ages (p. 447 seq.), and draws the inference that we can learn noth-
ing certain or to be relied upon from the testimony of those times ; Jam
constrained. once more to ask : How does the Apocalypse, in this respect,
differ from any other book of the New Testament? Is it not even con-
troverted, at present, whether Justin cites the proper Gospels at all?
And where in Irenaeus and Tertullian are evidences of any higher, and
more direct, and more critical nature, in respect to any of the books of
the New Testament, than there are in respect to the Apocalypse?
They all stand on the same level. If the Apocalypse falls, on this
ground, then all the other books must fall with it. Licke has never yet
shown, even by a single word, that the cases of these two different parts
of the New Testament rest upon a different basis. He admits, however,
that the opposition of the Alogi and of Caius, in the second century, to
the Apocalypse, arose from no critical examination, but from mere reli-
gious prejudice ; which, indeed, is plain enough.

With Origen begins the second period of the canonical history. Here
is no room to aver, that there was no critical examination. Origen was
confessedly the greatest critic, save one, among all the Christian fathers.
He divided the books claiming to be sacred, into three classes, viz. yj-
ote, vOOe, and wxré. The first comprises those which are undoubted-
ly genuine ; the second, the spurious; the third, either the controverted
or the doubtful ones. To the last class he assigns the Epistle of Jude,
2 John, 3. John, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas.
Now, since he makes no mention of the Apocalypse as ranking with
these, it is quite certain, as we have seen (p. 323 seq.), that he regard-
ed the Apocalypse as belonging to the yryora or genuine books. What
more can Liicke ask for, than this testimony of Origen as to his own
and the general opinion and belief of the churches at that period ?

Subsequent to this, what was the state of opinion has already been
amply exhibited in the preceding pages. Dionysius of Alexandria, the
pupil of Origen, doubted, as we have seen, the apostolic origin of the
Apocalypse, but not its divine inspiration or canonical credit; as he ex-
plicitly assures us. Eusebius, moved by his critical doubts and by his
opposition to Chiliasm, remained in a state of oscillation. In his De-
monstrationes Evang. he cites the Apocalpyse in the usual way, as a
divine book, (see p. 356 above) ; in his Hist. Ecc. he states grounds for
doubt, and seems disposed to class the book among the dvzideyouerer,
while he still hesitates to do so, on account of the strong feeling among
the churches in its favour. Among several of the fathers in Asia Minor

440 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT

of the fourth century, the Apocalypse appears, in some respects at least,
to have stood in the back-ground. .They were opposed to Chiliasm,
specially in the form of Montanism; and the Apocalypse was regarded
as the main authority of those who held to such opinions. Moreover
the book was acknowledged by all to be obscure and difficult of interpre-
tation. Hence it became a usage, somewhat extensive in the eastern
region, to exclude this book from the catalogue of those which were to
be publicly read; as we have seen in the cases of Gregory of Nazian-
zen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Philastrius, pp. 829 seq. Nothing certain
about the inspiration or divine authority of the Apocalypse can be argued
from its omission in such a catalogue; as is plain from the discussion in
the pages to which I have just referred. It seems. probable that Cyrill
of Jerusalem, and some others of his day, thought of the Apocalypse
much as Luther did, at the early period of the Reformation.. But this
state of things among the churches appears to have been temporary and
local. The region of the Montanists is the region where it mainly pre-
vailed; and as to the time of its continuance, the days of Andreas, and
Arethas, and of the Philoxenian Version, all show that there was speed-
ily a contrary state of things. In fact nothing can be more certain, than
that the authority of Jerome, and Augustine, and their compeers, in the
western portion of the churches, speedily became triumphant through
almost the whole of Christendom. Since the first half of the fifth cen-
tury, only now and then a solitary voice. has been raised against the
Apocalypse, either in the way of doubt or of opposition. The mass'of
Christendom have regarded the question as settled, and have felt no in-
terest to renew the discussion. » Now and then, some individual who had
closely studied the account which Eusebius gives of the canonical books,
and canvassed the arguments of Dionysius, or of some others, against
the Apocalypse, ventured to assume a doubting posture. There is al-
ways, among men of nearly every age, a class of minds who are more
moved by doubts, than by arguments in favour of anything.. Sometimes
vanity or the desire of distinction from the common herd moves to this;
at other times, a mind bursting the bonds of mere traditional belief will
be attracted by things of this nature, and will pursue them with uncom-
mon avidity. But whatever it might be that moved the very few doubt-
ers about the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, through all the dark ages
of monkery and superstition, it is quite certain, that none of them ever
had influence enough to alter the general state of belief among the
churches. Down to the time of Erasmus and Luther, the book in-ques-
tion held its rank in the canon among other books of the New Testa-
ment; although it was not publicly read in the same manner and mea-
sure as the other books. But this we must regard as almost a matter of
course, when the contents of the book are taken into view.

a

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 441

Erasmus, in the first edition of his'Greek Testament, has inserted,
in his Remarks on the Apocalypse, some intimations of doubt among
the Greek churches of ancient times respecting it, as testified by Je-
rome; see p. 333 above. (Eras. Nov. Test. 1516, but much more fully
in edit. 1527). Erasmus himself thinks it strange, that the writer of
the Apocalypse so often mentions his own name, contrary to the usage
of John. Paul, he significantly suggests, relates his visions (2 Cor.
xii.) with great modesty. Besides, the title to the book is Jauryys
GedLoyog. The difference of style, he further suggests, is also great
between John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse. All this, he says, makes
him doubt about the apostolic origin of the book; “unless indeed the
general consent of the Christian world should be in favour of it, or es-
pecially the authority of the church defend it, if indeed the church
should determine in its favour.’ So Erasmus was much in the same
plight with Eusebius ; critical arguments seemed to invite him one way,
and the voice of the church another. He then goes on to relate the
doubts of Dionysius of Alexandria, of Eusebius, of Caius the Roman
presbyter, ete.; and he concludes with naming several of the fathers
who were its strenuous defenders, but who were strong Chiliasts. All
this is merely a masked battery for assault. Finally he comes out with
the conclusion, that the book being made up of visions and allegories,
cannot be so profitable as some others; and in order to soften down
this, he suggests that even among precious jewels, one kind of gold may
be much more pure and valuable than another. All of this shows in
reality his secret doubts ; it shows also how timid he was in venturing
to say anything, which would call in question the usual and established
opinions of the Romish church.

The opinion of Luther, expressed in the preface to his German
translation of the New Testament printed in 1522, has. already been
cited at some length, on pp. 412 seq. above. Luther was, as we should
expect, open and avowed to all the world, as to his sentiments concern-
ing the Apocalypse; and in this respect he differed greatly from Eras-
mus. But his doubts did not extend merely to the Revelation. The
Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, and of Jude, also shared in his
doubts; and they were printed by Luther merely as an appendix to his
version of the New Testament, and without number or page. This
arrangement by which these four books were excluded from the canon,
was continued, in the Lutheran editions of the Bible, down to the be-
ginning of the 17th century. In some cases they were even printed
with the title of Apocrypha. The strict followers of Luther, for a long
time, and in fact even down to the middle of the 17th century, refrained
from appealing to them as canonical. They virtually classed them
with the dvzideyousve of Eusebius. Gradually they came to be regard-

VOL. I. 56

442 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT

ed as deutero-canonical. Texts might be cited from them to illustrate
and confirm other passages from the canonical books, but not to estab-
lish any doctrine which was not elsewhere taught. It is a comparatively
recent, thing, among the Lutheran theologians, to refer to these suspect-
ed books in the same manner as to others. But since the criticism
which is quite recent, has virtually and extensively given up.the- idea
of ¢nspiration, the once suspected books would seem to be entitled to as
good, or very nearly as good, a rank-as the others, and the appeal to
them without any particular distinction has become quite general.
Among those, however, whether in the Lutheran church or elsewhere,
who believed in the inspiration of ali the books in the present New
Testament canon, it was not to be expected that any such distinetion as
Luther and the earlier Lutherans made, could be kept up when appeal
was made to the New Testament Scriptures. The authority of all the
books in it was, as we shall soon. see, regarded as being for substance
the same. .

Luther himself grew milder in his judgment respecting the Apoca-
lypse, when he found a Commentarius on this book, which had been
written a century before, and which represented the Pope as antichrist.
The Reformer reprinted that Commentary, with a preface of his own.
In this preface he states, that the Apocalypse. may belong to that. class
of prophecies which are concerned merely with symbols and figures,
and which are hinted at in Acts 2:17, in the quotation made by Peter
from the book of Joel. Still, even here he does not retract his own per-
sonal doubts ; but he leaves the matter of admitting the Apocalypse en-
tirely free to others.

It is somewhat singular, that at this very period, (the second. quarter
of the 16th century), the leading and most influential persons concerned
with the reformation in Switzerland, adopted views respecting the Apoc-
alypse much like those of Luther. At the conference between the Ro-
manists and the Reformers, at Bern in 1528, Zuingle refused to admit
proof-texts from the Apocalypse, “because it was nota biblical book,”
ie, not a canonical one; (Werke. IJ. Abth. 1. p. 169 seq.). In this
he was joined by Oecolampadius and Bucer, who were present; none
of them regarding the Apocalypse, as authoritative. But this state of
feeling does not seem to have been propagated in the Reformed or Cal-
vinistic churches. Calvin, Beza, and their successors, admitted fully
and readily the canonical and apostolical authority of the book in ques-
tion. Hence it has always been recognized as such, in all the Creeds
of the so called Reformed churches. This was a point, therefore, in
which the Reformed churchesstood opposed to or distinguished from the
Lutheran, during the latter half of the sixteenth century, and. for some
time afterwards.

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 448

Even in the Lutheran church, however, there were some distinguish-
ed men, so early as the sixteenth century, who were favourably inclined
to the Apocalypse. Melancthon himself did not sympathize with Lu-
ther on this point ; and Francis Lambert and Chytraeus openly defend-
ed the apostolic origin of the book. But in the second quarter of the
17th century, the famous theologian, John Gerhard, in his Uberior He-
positio respecting the holy Scriptures, took the ground that the Apoca-
lypse was deutero-canonical ; by which he meant merely that the pro-
fessed authorship had been doubted by some. But its divine authority
was not represented by him as being dependent on this circumstance.
The great learning and influence of this writer brought the Apocalypse
gradually into credit among the Lutheran churches, agter that period,
down to the time when the progress of recent ‘criticism awakened new
doubts and undermined, in the view of a large portion of the German
critics, not only the apostolical origin of the Apocalypse, but the inspi-
ration of all the beoks of Scripture, and consequently their absolute and
decisive authority. The main test or evidence of authority seems now
to’ be this, viz., whatever agrees with our reason and understanding,
may be regarded as obligatory ; and whatever does not, is to be regard-
ed as indicative only of the feelings, views, or prejudices of the writer, and
we are not bound by it.

The history of this new revolution in the Lutheran churches (for it
is mostly confined as yet to them), might well oceupy a little volume,
replete with critical interest. . But it would be aside from my purpose to
do anything more than merely advert to a few of its prominent fea-
tures.

It is rather remarkable, that the first movement in the last war against
the Apocalypse, was made in England. \ A New Version of the Greek
Testament, author unknown, was published in London, in 1729, accom-
panied by Notes. In these the translator attacks even with bitterness
the credit of the Apocalypse, relying principally for his support on the
criticisms of Dionysius of Alexandria. This publication was’ followed,
in 1730, by a Discourse Historical and Critical on the Revelation ; in
which almost everything that could render the credit of the book doubt-
ful, is suggested and urged with much adroitness. It turned out in the
end, that this was an English translation of the celebrated Firmin Abau-
zit’s Discours historique sur ? Apocalypse. (f 1767). Abauzit was an
intimate friend of Bayle and Newton. At the request of an English
friend, William Burnet, he wrote the Discourse, and sent it to him; and
by him, perhaps, it was translated into English; for the name of the
translator is not given.. This book is generally regarded as marking the
commencement of a new period, in the criticism of the Apocalypse. It
called forth from Dr. Leonard Twells, in his Critical Examination (Part

*

444 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT

IIL.) of the New Testament in Greek and English, a vindication of the
Revelation ;—a vindication, the worth of which is even now generally ac-
knowledged. It was soon afterwards translated by Wolf into Latin, and
inserted in his Curae Philologicae in Nov. Test. . With this work of
Twells,*the controversy at that time seems to have subsided in England,
Twells being generally regarded as victorious in the contest.

About the middle of the 18th century, attention to the critical study
and literature of the Scriptures began to take a new turn, and to shoot
up with fresh life, in several of the Universities of Germany. At this
period, the Free Investigation of the so-called Revelation by John, was
written by Oeder, and published after his death by Semler, with addi-
tional notes. Ig is a small book, replete with evidences of great zeal
against the Apocalypse, and exhibits in some respects no ordinary de-
gree of acuteness.. Oeder and his learned editor appear, however, to
have no perception of any aesthetical merit in the Apocalypse. They
put to its account all the extravagant commentaries that have been writ-
ten upon it, and express themselves, in view of these, with all imagina-
ble contempt; while neither of them was qualified by his. taste or turn
of mind duly to appreciate, much less to explain, a book of. such a na-
ture as that of the Revelation. .The extravagance of maintaining that
Cerinthus was the author of the Apocalypse, as well as the general
spirit of the Free Investigation, prevented the favourable reception of
the work in question, except among the school of Semler. Still, the
book became the means of rousing up a spirit of inquiry into the criti-
cal history of the canon in general, as well as of the Apocalypse, which
has not yet ceased, but is becoming more and more animated, even at
the present period.

Semler was soon opposed by several writers of high character. Reuss
of Tubingen published his De Auctore Apocalypseos, Tiib. 17673
and afterwards, in 1772, an edition in German: with additional strictures
on a defence made by Semler, which Reuss entitled Vertheidigung der
Offenbarung Johannis. About the same time, C. F, Schmid, at Witten-
burg, published his Ob die Offenbar. Johannis ein echtes gottliches
Buch sey? and also his Historia antiqua et Vindicatio Canonis, 1775.
Both of these are filled with the fruits of great learning and research;
although at times the author’s zeal gets the better of his judgment and
good temper. In 1773, Knittel of Wolfenbiittel also published his Bei-
trage zur Kritik uber Johan. Offenbarung. All of these were able
works, and roused up Semler and his adherents to make strenuous op-
position. Still, the contest, for the most part, was managed with a good
degree of decency and moderation. ‘The consequence of it, moreover,
has not been unimportant; for the questions raised about the Apocar

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 445

lypse have since then been better understood and more fully discussed,
than they were or had been previous to this period.

Among those who-distinguished themselves in the controversy that
followed this commencement of the war, may be mentioned Corrodi in
his Geschichte des Chiliasmus, and Merkel in his Histor. crit. Aufkla-
rung der Streitigkeit, etc. ; both of whom entertained, for the most part,
the same views as Semler; while Storr in his Neue Apologie der
Offenbarung, and. Hartwig in his Apologie der Apokalypse wider falschen
Tadel und falschen Lob, strenuously and ably defended the genuineness
of the Revelation. All these books were published between 1780—85 ;
a full proof of the deep interest excited by the Semlerian controversy.

Since that period, every Introduction ‘to the critical history of the
New Testament has of course discussed the question of the apostolic
origin of the Apocalypse. - Michaelis interested himself much in it;
but in his Introduction he finally takes the position of Eusebius, or per-
haps of Dionysius. He had a Mss. copy of Abauzit’s Discours in his
hands, and evidently was much influenced by it. Then, as a Lutheran,
he might follow in the steps of the great Reformer and of the early
Lutherans. Herder and Eichhorn, by their distinguished Commenta-
ries on the Apocalypse, made an effectual vindication of its aesthetic
merits, and placed the book in an attitude before the public mind, which
writers like Storr and Hartwig could not well portray. It seemed, for
awhile, as if the contest was to subside and the churches settle down
again in their former belief, but with more enlightened views of the na-
ture of the Apocalypse. But the adventurous spirit of recent criticism
is rarely able to settle down in what has already been believed, in case
there is any good room for even a moderate measure of doubt, or any
difficulty which cannot be wholly removed. We find, therefore, a for-
midable host of critics arranged on either side of the question about
apostolic origin; most of them developing their views in formal Intro-
ductions to the New Testament, or in Commentaries upon the Apoca-
lypse. AcGarnsr the apostolic origin are Heinrichs, Bretschneider,
Bleek, De Wette, Ewald, Schott, Liicke, Credner, and others; For it
are Haenlein, Schmidt, Kleuker, Herder, Hug, Eichhorn, Feilmoser,
Lange, Bertholdt, Guerike, Kolthoff, Danemann, and others. When
Liicke published his Introduction to the Apocalypse (1832), the ma-
jority, as he states, held fast the Johannean origin. Among the critical
portion of the German public, this would seem, at the present, no longer
to be the case. Liicke’s work has itself done much toward leading the
minds of the learned to an opposite conclusion. There is a moderation
in his book, a general fairness of reasoning, a sobriety, an apparent ab-
sence of prejudice and party feeling, an extent and depth of learning,
which can nowhere and at no time fail to win respect and more or less

446 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND’ CREDIT

of confidence. Among the great mass, even of critics, who have never
studied deeply and thoroughly the literature of the Apocalypse, and the
nature of the book, it is no wonder that such a work as Liicke’s should
be regarded as entitled to great deference. _In a question so difficult as
that respecting the author of the book, it is more pleasant and easy to
be guided, than to.make the efforts which are adequate to render oneself
able to think independently. Hence, with De Wette and Bleek and
Schott:and Ewald and Credner to aid the cause for which Liicke pleads,
no wonder that Germany, at the present time, is again on the high
road toward the positions of Semler; although several of: his most rash
and extravagant positions would be generally rejected. Semler’s aes-
thetical views, for example, and Oeder’s opinion that Oerinthus wrote
the Apocalypse, will probably find few if any advocates hereafter.

It is not to be understood, from this statement, that no learned advo-
cates of the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse can now be found in Ger-
many. ‘This would be remote from the truth; forseveral recent dis-
cussions of this subject have appeared, which support the Johannean
or apostolic origin. Yet the majority of critics who seem to bear sway
in Germany, would appear to side with Licke.

In England and in this country, the question before us has not been
mooted for this long time. At least no serious effort, from a respectable
quarter, has been made in regard to the critical history of the Apoca-
lypse. In both countries, we have books almost without number, which
tell us what dynasties, or civil events, or wars, or political and religious
changes, the Apocalypse has predicted—the offspring, in some cases, of
respectable learning and perhaps of warm piety ; in other cases, of mere
ignorance of the true manner and matter of biblical prophecy; and in
some, of adventurous enthusiasm and rank prejudice and overweening
self-conceit. Any and every man, even those who could not read a word
of Greek or Hebrew, has felt at liberty to speculate and to write upon
this book, and to lay before the world the fruit of his crude and incon-
gruous speculations. The Apocalypse would seem, as viewed by them,
to have been written in order to make men prophets, rather than to be
written by a prophet and submitted to sober readers for exposition.
Scarcely any five years have passed, now for a long time, in which
some work of the character just described has not made its appearance,
in England or America. But most works of this nature never ‘come to
a second edition. They have been unlucky enough, it may be, to fix
on the destruction of Antichrist (the Pope), or on the commencement
of the Millennium, at a period which is now gone by ; and'so of course
the book vanishes along with thie time. Such has now been the fate of
Bengel’s famous work on the Apocalypse, which cost him some twenty
years of labour, and which for a long time was much talked about both

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 447

on the continent of Europe and in England. But Bengel found his
grand period of consummation in A. D.1836; and this alas! has passed
by, without any noticeable changes of the world either in a civil or reli-
gious respect. ‘So have fallen many other like works, in England and
in this country, entitled to immeasurably less respect than Bengel’s ;
and so the remainder of this class of works, which have made the Apoca-
lypse a mere Syllabus of civil and ecclesiastical history, are destined to
fall. A few years more will sweep away all the baseless fabries which
they have erected.

Deeply is it to be regretted, that sehen of radical investigation of the
literature and exegesis of the Apocalypse, by the rules of criticism and
philology adopted. in all other cases, the English and American writers
have,.for the most part, expended their time and talents in making out
some ingenious and fine-spun theory about the beast and false prophet,
and about the time of their development and destruction, which amounts,
and never can amount, to nothing more than a kind of specious hariola-
tion or vaticination. Time has already demonstrated this respecting a
large class..of books composed by writers’ of this cast; and there is no
presumption in saying, that the rest of them are ere long to sink into
oblivion in the same way. There must be some ground in language, in
the nature of the occasion, in-the historical circumstances of the times,
and in the general nature. of the composition, on which any interpreta-
tion can find a permanent resting place. There must be some other
menstruum in which difficulties can be solved, besides the Pope, and the
1260 days turned into years, and Mohammed, and the Saracens, and
Buonaparte. :

I have said nothing, as yet, of the critical history of the Apocalypse
in the Romish church, since the Reformation.. Nothing more need be
said, than that about the middle of the 16th century the Council of Trent
explicitly admitted the Apocalypse as a divine book and of Johannean
origin, and sanctioned it accordingly. In that church, and, by a reflex
influence, in the Greek churches, no one of any note, so far as I know,
has. appeared since, who openly calls this in question.

The present posture of the canonical credit or authority of the Apoca-
lypse, is easily deduced from these premises. Excepting a class of
critics in Germany, and some few elsewhere, this book is regarded as
apostolic and authoritative by the Christian world in general.

Liicke himself, notwithstanding his decided rejection of the Johan-
nean origin of the Apocalypse, does not propose to eject the book from
the canon. A book fully canonical, he thinks, must have an apostle for
its author; and this must be known with certainty. But as this would
make only a narrow circle to move in, he proposes. the admission of
some other books, of secondary, and of course not of the highest, au-

448 § 26. CANONICAL RANK AND CREDIT

thority, which may serve to explain and confirm the canonical books.
Such are the books composed by the companions and fellow-labourers
of the apostles, who, from their intimate connection with them, must
have understood their views and feelings; e. g. the books of Mark and
Luke, and perhaps the epistles of James, Jude, and possibly some others.
It is essential that these books of the secondary order do not contradict
the apostolic ones, and that the writers of them be known. But in case
the writers are not known, Liicke proposes to class the books with the
dvtikeyouerce of Eusebius, or the wxza of Origen. He would not re-
fuse them a place in the canon, unless they are at variance with, or con-
tradict, the books of the first rank.—Then they must be deemed apoc-
ryphal. Their proper office is, to explain and confirm the books of the
first rank ; but no doctrine can be built on what only these deutero-ca-
nonical books contain.

In this latter sense, he reckons the Apocalypse among the canonical
books. ‘The book, as he supposes, ‘was undoubtedly written in the
apostolic age, and sprung from actual circumstances then existing. It
came, at all events, from some warm friend of the apostles and of Chris-
tianity. Its form is no decisive objection to it, although it differs in this
respect from other New Testament books. It finds analogies in the
Jewish Scriptures. Nor can it be properly decided @ priori, that no
book of the New Testament is to have a prophetic form.’ It must sure-
ly be admitted, I would moreover suggest, by every reader of taste
and discernment, that the Apocalypse differs widely from all the apoc-
ryphal compositions of that period, which exhibit attempts at a sim-
ilar method of composition ; e. g. the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of
Isaiah, the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs, the fourth of Ezra, and
the like. What has made such a wide and striking difference? If he
be not an apostle who wrote the Apocalypse, must he not have been an
apostolical man ?

Finally, Liicke canvasses the objections raised by Oeder against the
Apocalypse, on the score of doctrine, and comes to the conclusion, that
most of them are groundless, and others insignificant. For example;
Oeder objected, that ‘only the Apocalypse developes a regular progress
and full completion of the kingdom of God 3’ whereas the New Testa-
ment throughout exhibits here and there the same views; comp. Matt.
xxiv. xxv. 13:36—50. Rom. xi. 2 Thess. ii. al. To this consideration
I should add, that the Old Testament is replete with predictions of the
like nature; comp. the view in §2 above. The terrestrial reign’ of
Christ, and the thousand years are also adduced as indicative of novelty
and peculiarity of doctrine in the Apocalypse. ‘The first of these objec-
tions depends, of course, merely on the mode of exegesis, and is subjec-
tive; the second differs-from other views respecting the kingdom of

OF THE APOCALYPSE. 449

Christ in the New Testament, only in the apparent limitation of time.
But is one thousand, in this case, anything.more than the figurative ex-
pression of a long period? As to the first resurrection, at Christ’s com-
ing (Rev. 20: 4—6), which is also objected against the Apocalypse, in
case we adopt the literal exegesis of the passage, we may still say that
even this has been found, at last, to have analogies in other parts of the
New Testament, and probably in the Old; see § 10, p. 175 seq. above.
The assertion that Christ-is substantially represented in a different man-
ner, in the Apocalypse and the other books of the New Testament, is
plainly and palpably erroneous ; and is so, whether one regards his de-
pendence as expressed in Rey. 1:1, or his supremacy and his equality
with Him that sitteth on the throne, as in 4: 4,5, 8 seq. 5: 1—7, 8—14,
_ete.; for the like representations may be elsewhere found in the New
Testament, and found in abundance; see Comm. on Rev. 1: 1, and on
the other passages. The idea that believers will be kings and priests to
God, so often recurring in the Apocalypse, is frequent also in other parts
of Scripture, both in the New and Old Testaments; see Comm. on 1: 6.
This cannot be urged, therefore, against the Apocalypse.

These, and more like to these, are the allegations of Oeder and others
against the Apocalypse; by which they would fain prove, that it is no
more than an apocryphal book. Licke himself repels all these and the
like charges, and settles down in the conclusion, that the Apocalypse
should be admitted into our canon; but only as a book of the third class,
i, e. as one of Antilegomena. The ground of this in his view is, that
the author of the book is unknown.

_If such were my persuasion, I might perhaps pursue the same course
of deduction from the facts supposed to be true. But as I am fully per-
suaded, that, all things considered, the evidence is much stronger in fa-
your of the apostolic origin than against it, so I must assign to the Apoc-
alypse a place among Liicke’s first class of canonical books. I have
never yet been able, in any satisfactory way, to account for the early
and uniform tradition with respect to the author of the Apocalypse, on
any other ground than by supposing it to be founded on a matter of
fact. The book sprung. from Asia Minor, where John resided and
acted ; it appeared during his life time; it was addressed to churches
with which he was conversant, and who must have known what writings
were his; to churches friendly to him and zealous for his honour ; to
churches rebuked by the writer, and who would. receive such reproof
and admonition only from some one highly respected. Why then was
not.the forgery—or if one must employ softer words—the factitious com-
position, of the Apocalypse exposed? Nothing could have been easier
than to expose it. And when the book makes such high claims to credit
and reception—how could the seven churches lend an ear to all this, as

VOL. I. o7

4
450 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

well as to its rebukes, unless they believed that all came from proper
authority? I do not say that the factitious composition was impossible,
but I cannot refrain from the conviction that it is highly dmprobable.

The result is plain. ‘Those who believe with me, that the evidence
on the whole is strong in favour of the position, that John. the apostle
wrote the Revelation, must of course regard this work as belonging to
the books fully and in the highest sense canonical. In it I find no doe-
trines that are wholly unique or absolutely new, but only new modifica-
tions, or additional views, in various respects, of doctrines elsewhere
taught.

§ 27. Historical sketch of the Exegesis of the book.

I make no adventurous assertion when I say, that there was a time,
when the Apocalypse was read and rightly understood by the more in-
telligent class of readers. I can form no conception of an undertaking
by a sensible man in sober earnest, to write a book which would be un-
intelligible to those to whom it is addressed. What object could he have
in view? Supposing him to be, as I have said, in sober earnest, he of
course would wish to impart his feelings and views to others, with whom
he acted and for whom he sympathized. But how could he do this, in
case he wrote ina manner unintelligible ?

The original readers of the Apocalypse, then, it would seem iteasty if
not quite certain, understood the Apocalypse... I do not mean to say
that all Christians belonging to the seven churches of Asia understood
it. The nature of the book—it being a series of symbols with a great
abundance of tropical diction—would of course elevate it above the rea-
dy understanding of the ignorant and the uninstructed in the Scriptures.
It requires some experience and taste and a portion of critical discern-
ment, to read at any time such a book as the Apocalypse in an intelligent
manner. But this belongs to the Apocalypse im common with all, or at
any rate with most, of the prophetic books. The books of Isaiah, Eze-
kiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and indeed nearly all of the Hebrew prophets,
made similar demands upon readers. ‘The Paradise Lost of Milton, and
many other poetical works in our language, may indeed be read by all
who can read English, and many things in them ean be understood and
appreciated in a good measure, even by the middle and lower classes of
readers. But to comprehend the whole—the plan, the execution of it,
the diction, the allusions to classic and other lore, the tropical expres-
sions, and other things of a like nature—this lies within the province of
only afew.

Something like to this, must we suppose the case to have been with
the Apocalypse and its original readers. It is not a book of simple his-
tory and plain didactics. It is poetic in its very nature; and its poetry

a

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 451

belongs to that class which is'the most difficult of all to be understood
and rightly appreciated, except. by readers who are familiar with the
Hebrew prophetic idiom. None can doubt or deny, that it is deeply
tinctured with Hebrew colouring. Of course it is not to be fully under-
stood and fully appreciated, except by such as have attained to some
good degree of familiarity with this colouring. ,

Let me not be misunderstood, I do not say, that there are not very ma-
ny things in this book, which every reader of common sense can peruse
and understand, and by which he may be profited. Plainly there are.
The great Christian virtues which it inculeates, of warm attachment to
the Christian religion, of unshaken fidelity to it, of persevering confi-
dence in its promises, of awful dread of its threatenings, of patience and
quiet submission under persecution, of holy resolution to suffer and even
die rather than forsake the cause of Christ, of ardent love to Christian
brethren and sympathy with them—all these virtues are plainly and ob-
viously commended by every part of the book, and the commendation
and enforeement of them cannot be mistaken by any candid reader.
But beyond the great and obvious ends of the book, there lies, under its
abounding and magnificent drapery, many an idea which can be fully
understood and appreciated, either in respect to its limits, true shape, or
aesthetical value, only by the more informed reader.

Some such readers John must have had, among all the churches whom
he addressed. In them all were doubtless more or less of those who
were native Hebrews. John then could reasonably count upon being
understood by some, who belonged to those churches which were ad-
dressed ; and this was all that could be expected in regard to such a
composition as the Apocalypse, and indeed all that was necessary. Such
readers could explain the book to others.

Thus much the very nature of the case’ teaches us. We cannot, in-
deed, make out the history of apocalyptic exegesis in the apostolic age,
i. e. during the first century, from any written documents; for such we do
not possess. We only know, that very soon after this age, readers of
the Apocalypse began to explain some parts of it in such a literal man-
ner, as to throw in the way great obstacles to the reception of the book
as canonical.

It seems more than probable, that Papias drew his millennial views
from the Apocalypse, i. e. he gave to chap. 20: 2—4 a literal sense, and
maintained a literal terrestrial reign of Christ and the saints. But how-
ever this may be, it is clear enough that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian, interpreted the Apocalypse, in regard to this matter, ina way
which was substantially literal. The two former regarded the descrip-
tions of the thousand years’ reign on earth, of the first resurrection of
the dead, of the new Jerusalem, of Antichrist, etc., as designed to be

¥

452 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

literally interpreted in‘ order to elicit the true meaning of the Apoca-
lypse; and they combined also with the various predictions of this nature,
in the second portion of the Apocalypse, various prophecies of the Old
Testament, in particular many of those in the book of Isaiah. Whoev-
er wishes to see the manner in which those fathers represent these sub-
jects, and how they argue, may consult Justin, Dial. cum Tryphone, c.
81, and Irenaeus, Contra Haeres. V. c. 25—36. The latter is not des-
titute of some fine remarks, although he manifests occasionally much
credulity and very fanciful modes of interpretation. Justin has said but
little in relation to this subject; but that little shows that all the Chris-
tians of his day were not Chiliasts, in the sense in which he was.

As to Tertullian, the reader will find passages that give his views in
his De Cultu Fem. 12 seq. Contra Marc. II. 14. 24. De Corona Mil.
c. 15, Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. De Resurrect. Carnis, c. 26. More spirit,
life, and aesthetical discernment, will be found im him than in Justin
and Irenaeus. He had, with all his peculiar Latinity, a turn of mind
essentially poetical and oratorical. His main book on the reign of
Christ, viz. his De Spe Fidelium, to which he himself appeals for a full
exposition of his views, is lost beyond the hope of recovery. It would
be a book of great interest to the history of exegesis. Tertullian was a
Chiliast. Of course, as a Montanist he would be one. But probably
he would have been one without. Montanism. He has developed his
views sufficiently for us to see, that while he has more of the elements
of taste and spirit and eloquence than Irenaeus or Justin, yet he seems
to have differed from them only in his manner of interpreting particular
texts. His general scheme of exegesis elicited from the Apocalypse
the same leading ideas, that are advanced by those two writers.

All that we have, however, in the works of these fathers, gives us
nothing more than a few of their opinions respecting the Apocalypse ;
and these are only of the most generic kind. They comprise in the
main, also, only such views as are deduced from the latter part of the
Apocalypse. How they disposed of chap. iv—xii, we do not know with
any certainty.

The general interpretation which the Montanists also gave to the lat-
ter portion of the Apocalypse, is quite plain from the extravagance of
their Chiliasm. No doubt these so-called heretics have been but par-
tially represented to us, by those who were opposed to them. Had we
Tertullian’s defence of them, we should be better able to understand
their true position. As it is, we must content ourselves with the know-
ledge, that. they gave to some leading parts of the Apocalypse, respect-
ing the coming and kingdom of Christ, a literal sénse ; perhaps a more
extravagant one than Justin, Irenaeus, or other fathers gave, who were
Chiliasts. Yet scarcely anything could be more extravagant, than some
portion of Irenaeus’ views.

ae

t

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 453

Near the commencement of the third century, Hippolytus, bishop of
Portus Romanus, and a pupil of Irenaeus (as Photius asserts), wrote,
as Jerome declares, a commentary on the Apocalypse, as well as on
many other portions of Scripture. Andreas and Arethas quote his
commentary on the Apocalypse ; but the book is lost, and we know of
Hippolytus’ opinions only through the medium of these quotations, and
by what he has said in his book concerning Antichrist. Antichrist is,
with him, the grand solution of the leading problems in Daniel and in
the Apocalypse. The fourth beast in Daniel and the first in Apoe. xiii.
are regarded as one and the same, and Antichrist is the antitype, and
the grand agent who plays all the important parts. As.a specimen of
his mode of handling symbol and trope, we may advert to his remarks
on Rey..12: 1 seq. ‘The woman is the church; the sun which éncom-
passes her means the word of God; the moon under her feet indicates
that her splendour is celestial; the crown of twelve stars indicates the
twelve apostles; the woes of parturiency show that the church at all
times is bringing forth the word of God, which suffers persecution by
the world, etc.’ ._In the sequel he says, that ‘by the two eagles’ wings,
given to the woman in order to aid her flight, we are to understand a
belief in Christ, who on the cross spread out his two hands like wings,
for a protection to his followers.’ These will show the reader at once
the position of the commentator. Curious indeed the commentary must
have been, which came from such a hand as is here developed. Ex un-
gue—leonem !

Hitherto all in the exegesis of the Apocalypse is fluctuating, arbi-
trary, and.of course uncertain. No idea of any regular plan and con-
nection throughout this book, seems to have suggested itself to the minds:
of the writers of that day. But let us turn for a moment to the Alex-
andrine School, and see what they did in regard to the interpretation of
the Apocalypse.

Origen would have had no difficulty with this book.. He had none as
to its canonical authority. His mode of allegorizing would easily have
enabled him to steer through the most difficult parts of the Apocalypse,
without embarrassment. He could at any time resort to his favourite
anagoge, i. e. transcendental or spiritualizing exegesis, and go through
all obstacles. . That he was entirely hostile to Chiliasm in the grosser
sense, is well known; and the same is true of the other Alexandrine
fathers in general. But he has left no Commentary behind him on the
Apocalypse, although he seems to have had one in view; see Tract.
30 in Matt. It was easy for him, and Dionysius, and others of the
African School who opposed Montanism and Chiliasm, to disembarrass
themselves at any time of all trouble about particular passages in the
Apocalypse. That they did so, at least that Origen did, there is no

454 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

doubt. But of the particular manner in which this was done, we have
no specific account. : ; 2.

As yet, we have lighted upon nothing now extant but fragments, in
respect to the exegesis of the Apocalypse. We come at last to an en-
tire work, devoted to the explanation of this book; imperfect indeed,
and doubtless interpolated and altered to a considerable extent, but still
preserving such lineaments as will serve to give us an idea, how such a
book as the Apocalypse was managed by expositors, near the close of
. the third century or at the beginning of the fourth.

Victorinvs, bishop of Petavium in Pannonia, who died as a mar-
tyr about 303, wrote a commentary in Latin upon the Revelation,
which, nominally at least, is still extant. But doubts have arisen
among’ critics, how far this can be regarded as genuine. Jerome (Ca-
tal. Scriptt. c. 18) testifies of Victorinus, that he was a Chiliast, and
had interpreted the Apocalypse accordingly. But the Commentary
now before us says, respecting the millennial period: “ Ergo audiendi
non sunt, qui mille annorum regnum terrenum esse confirmant; qui
cum Cerintho haeretico faciunt.” In fact, the exposition given'of the
whole passage respecting the reign of a thousand years, although it is
extremely arbitrary and indeed a mere conceit, yet shows that the wri-
ter was far enough from understanding the Apocalypse here in a literal
sense. Besides this, the commentary appeals once to the epitome of
ecclesiastical history by Theodorus, which was written in the 6th cen-
tury; see in Biblioth. Maxima, III. p. 417. B., in which volume: the
whole commentary may be found. These are palpable evidences of in-
terpolation at least, if indeed the whole work be not supposititious.
That it is not, however, is strongly my impression, from frequent con-
sultation of it. It presents some internal evidence of being “composed
in the Latin church, and not far from the period assigned to it. It
makes no reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which at that period
was doubted by some of the Latin church, (see p. 415, in the reckon-
ing of Paul’s epistles) ; it adverts to Nero’s reappearance as Antichrist,
(p. 420 D., see also my remarks and Excursus on Rev. 13: 8) } it al-
ludes to the Romish Senate as persecuting the church (p. 420:H.), alll
of which seems to favour the early composition of the work. In fact,
there is one passage in it, which seems to have escaped the diligence of
emendators, viz.—“in Judaea, ubi omnes sancti ‘conventuri sunt, et
Dominum suum adoraturi,” (p. 415, D.) ; which favours the character
given of the book by Jerome, i. e. that it was Chiliastic. The whole
contour of the book corresponds well, in one respect, with what Cassio-
dorus (fl. 514) says of it, viz., that it undertook to explain only some of
the most difficult passages. Putting all these considerations together,
it would seem probable, that what Ambrosius Ansbertus (fl. 750) says

EXDHGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 455

in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, respecting the work of Victori-
nus, is true: “ Among the Latins, Victorinus first commented upon
the Apocalypse. Jerome has followed on in his foot-steps ; expunging
certain things which the author literally interpreted, and adding some
things of his own, he formed the whole into one book ;” Bib. Max. XIII.
p- 404, E. Probably it is for this reason, that Jerome never wrote
any other commentary on the Apocalypse. Passages now in the work
of Victorinus, which are later than Jerome’s time, may have come from
marginal annotations of later readers; and this is the more credible,
because there are but few of this nature.

On the whole, we may admit that for substance we have before us a
work of Victorinus; but still one which has been spiritualized by Je-
rome, who was much devoted to Origen’s views of interpretation with
respect to the difficult parts of the Scriptures. But the reader can
scarcely form an idea of the execution of this work, without reading for
himself. Everything is merely miscellaneous. No plan of the whole
work is sought after, or even conceived of; no effort to get at the cir-
cumstances and relation of the writer of the Apocalypse and his times,
and bring them to bear-on the explanation of the book. - The work is ex-
ceedingly brief; the whole Commentary occupying less than seven folio
pages in the Bibliotheca. Grammatical and philological intrepretation
are out of question ; and the symbols are explained in the most arbitra-
ry manner. Those that resemble each other, are regarded as mere
repetitions of the same subject, although in a manner somewhat differ-
ent; and so the writer oscillates from one position to another, very
much as fancy would seem to dictate. No one can even think of gain-
ing any exegetical satisfaction of consequence, from ‘any portion of the
work. Barren of appropriate ideas, and full of conceits, it can serve
little other purpose than to remind one, at what alow ebb the science
of interpretation stood, when Victorinus wrote this book. Yet it must
not be supposed that there is nothing good to be found in his Com-
mentary. Now and then a remark the reader will meet with, which is
happily expressed and even striking.

We have seen how matters stood in respect to the Apocalypse, in the
Greek churches after the time of Eusebius. It seems to have been
generally withdrawn from the books that were to be publicly read in the
churches ; and by consequence, to have been withdrawn from particular
attention, among the interpreters of the Seripture. Hence we find a
Chrysostom and a Theodoret omitting it in their exegetical writings.
Origen had promised a Commentary, but did not live to complete one.
We find nothing of this nature among the Greeks, until we come down
to the latter part of the fifth century, when we meet with a work, which
is a kind of a continuous exegesis of the whole Apocalypse, written in

456 § 27, HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

Greek by AnpREAS, bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia. It is much of
the like cast with the commentary of Victorinus, excepting that it is
fuller, somewhat more sober, and has.a little more of connection. Still
we might well name it Miscellaneous Remarks. He refers occasionally
to what other writers have said, respecting the book itself, or of certain
passages in it, viz., Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius, Epiphanius, and
Gregory Nazianzen. But he seems to have had no full commentary on
the book before him. Like Origen, he makes a three fold sense, as oc-
casion seems to demand, viz. a literal, a tropological or moral, and an
anagogical i. e. spiritual or transcendental, which last alludes to or ex-
hibits the mysteries of the future and of eternal life under the veil
of symbols. When one of these methods of interpretation will not
satisfy the writer, he resorts to another ; so that between them all, he is
sure to find some solution of difficulties. As to times in the Apocalypse,
although the book proclaims that the period of fulfilment is éyyvs, yet
with God a thousand years are as one day, and vice versa ; so, of course,
no embarrassment can come upon his exposition from this quarter. The
temple in Rey. 11:1 seq. he regards as the temple of the Christian
church ;. 11: 13 he regards as relating to a remote future; and chapter
xii. with the sequel of the book, he regards as parts of what the seventh
trumpet betokens. The number 666 he thinks will be certainly known
only at the future appearance of Antichrist; 17: 10 he applies to hea-
then Rome, the seven kings are seven Roman emperors, the seven heads
and hills are seven monarchies of the world, of which that of heathen
Rome (when the Apocalypse was written) was the sixth, the seventh
began with Constantine, and the eighth will be that of Antichrist. He
refers 16: 19 to Jerusalem; and the division of the city into three parts
he refers to the population of the city, which consisted of Jews, Samari-
tans, and Christians. He is hostile to grosser Chiliasm, and refers the
thousand years to the abundance and fulness of the knowledge of
God, which, after one thousand years from the birth of Christ, will
everywhere be diffused. These hints may suffice to characterize the
work. No regard is paid to any regular plan of the book, and very
little to the circumstances of the writer and the events of the times.
Nor must the reader expect anything of a philological cast, like that
which characterizes the commentaries of the present day. Yet itisa
more respectable work than that of Victorinus. But in vain will one
search for connection and consistency in it, or for any light except that
which a sensible man might throw upon the Apocalypse from conjecture.
It is evident that he had not, in general, even tradition. to guide his in-
terpretations. But he is somewhat modest and diffident in proposing
them, and does not appear in the light of a confident enthusiast.
ARETHAS, a successor of Poca. and in the same bishopric, wrote

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 457

a still more copious commentary on the Apocalypse, and in the same
style. He treads closely in the steps of his predecessor, and epitomizes
him in some places, while he enlargesin others. Yet he is not destitute
of independence of opinion. He gives some hints, here and there, of
different views; and more than once seems to intimate that Rev. iv—
xi. applies to the Jews and Jerusalem, although he would not exclude
an ultimate reference to Antichrist. Here and there, too, he intersperses
grammatical remarks, which are not without value.

It is singular that these two works should have made their appear-
ance in that region of the church, where the Apocalypse had most fall-
en into desuetude. It would seem that the very object of the bishops
before us, was again to bring the book into the notice and esteem of the
churches, by endeavouring to render it more intelligible. And with their
efforts appear to have ceased the labours of the Greek churches upon
the Apocalypse. Oecumenius is thought by Montfaucon (Bib. Cois.
fol. 277 seq.), to have written a Greek Catena on this book. The like
is also said of Andreas of Crete, (Montf. Pal. Graec. fol. 231). But if
they did write upon the Apocalypse, we have not their works; and the
fact itself is uncertain.

In the Latin churches, where: the Apocalypse maintained its ground,
we should have expected from Jerome or Augustine some explanations
of the book in question. But, excepting Jerome’s remodelling of Victo-
rinus, we have nothing more than occasional notices ; e. g. in Augustine,
De Civit. Dei. XX. 7—17. Jerome, we know, has said that the
Apocalypse has as many mysteries as words, and that particular words
have a manifold meaning; Ep. 53 ad Paulinum, § 8. He intimates,
that Rev. 11: 2 cannot mean the literal Jerusalem, because that had
been destroyed when the book was written; the present world there-
fore must be meant, which is to be renewed and restored to a paradisaical
state. We know then, in general, how Jerome would have interpreted
such a book.

Trcontvs, the Donatist, a contemporary with Jerome and Augustine,
wrote an Hxpositio of the Apocalypse. The work itself has perished ;
but from the testimony of others, it appears that he rejected all histor-
ical exegesis, and applied anagoge to every part of the book which ap-
peared to be mysterious. Hence he obtained, of course, only general
and undefined results, the offspring of conjecture or imagination.

Cass1oporus, about the middle of the sixth century, wrote brief ex-
plications, or Complexiones (as he calls them), of the Apocalypse. He
follows in the track of Ticonius; to whom, indeed, he refers his readers
for fuller information. Of the same character is the work of his con-
temporary, Primasius, bishop of Utica, who declines all historical con-
nection in the Apocalypse, and all special historical relation. Chap. xi.

VOL. I 5

458 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

and xvii, for example, relate only to the state of the world in general,
under the image of Jerusalem and of Rome. Brpa and AmBrRosius
Anspertus, of the eighth century, merely repeat what had been before
said, in the like style. Beda is particularly partial to Ticonius. He
makes no attempt to find a plan and connection in the Apocalypse, but
assumes a parallelism of visions in several parts, and thus confounds the
whole. Ansserrus (767) oceasionally seeks for the grammatical
sense. He scems first to have noted, that the Apocalypse is occasion-
ally regressive. But his maxim, that the true and full sense of prophe-
cy must be typical and mysterious, must of course mislead him. In
commenting he is exceedingly arbitrary, sometimes passing from species’
to genus, and then from genus to species. The consequence is, that he
has strangely commingled mystical, allegorical, and dogmatical meanings.
He has drawn largely upon his predecessors, especially upon Primasius ;
and, on the whole, has made no important advances upon those who had
preceded him.

Looking back from the close of the eighth century upon what had
been done by commentators in the way of explaining the Apocalypse,
we find that no real and solid advances were made. The great truth,
that Christ's kingdom would come, and that all the enemies of the
church would be subdued, was indeed evident to all the expositors. But
how to dispose of all the imagery and symbols ; how to unfold the book
in a grammatical, rhetorical, or historical respect ; how to lay open the
plan of the work, to point out its unity, its progress, and its mutual con-
nection ; in a word, how to appeal to the circumstances of the writer, of
the churches addressed, or of the actors in the scenes who are presented
by symbols—all this surpassed the exegetical knowledge of the times.
Of course it was impossible but that attempts to explain, without a pro-
per regard to all these things, must turn out to be failures.

From this period on to the dawning of the Reformation, the darkest
part of the dark ages, no one conyersant with the history of the times
will expect anything important in the way of exegesis. The theology
of the Schoolmen did indeed, in their way, make some advances during
this period. Speculative theologians, of great acuteness in some in-
stances, were not wanting. But whatever of commentary on the Apoc-
alypse appeared, it was for the most part only a repetition of what had
already been said, or the suggestion of something more of the same
tenor and in the like way. The reader who wishes for an enlarged cat-
alogue of interpreters of the Apocalypse, at this period, may find one in
_ Like, p. 615 seq. I deem it unnecessary to repeat it here, as it is
rather a matter of mere literary curiosity than of exegetical interest.
Instead of this, I would merely suggest the two leading principles which

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 459

guided most of the commentators of this period; in accordance with
what Liicke has suggested, p. 514 seq.

(1) The position of Andreas, that the thousand years of chap. xx.
must be counted from the first institution of the Christian church, which
in itself was the first resurrection, was generally admitted. Of course
the writers who preceded A. D. 1000, and who adopted such views,
were looking with great anxiety to the events that would immediately
follow the arrival of this period. . Antichrist was then to reappear (Gog
and Magog were regarded as symbols of him), and the end of the world
was speedily to follow. As the. period drew near, great excitement
naturally prevailed in regard to it; not unlike to that. which has several
times existed among a limited class of enthusiastic men, in Europe and
this country, with respect to the end of the famous period of 1260 years.
But when the thousand years had gone by, and things remained in statu
quo, of course the tone of commentary was changed. The thousand
years now began to be viewed as a large and indefinite period, the like
to which could be found in other parts of Scripture; so that no one
could venture to predict the exact time of their end. This of course
gave some check to the development ef enthusiasm respecting the Apoc-
alypse ; but it did not. remedy the other difficulties that lay in the way
of a proper exposition of the book.

(2) So late as the 13th century began the far more important and in-
fluential error of regarding the Apocalypse as a kind of suecleus or sylla-
bus of ecclesiastical and civil history, down to the end of the world.
“ Prophecy,” says Licke with much force, “appeared to be the com-
pass which the divine Spirit had given to the church, on her voyage
over the wide sea of time, in order that she might at any moment deter-
mine where she was, how long she must still maintain. her contest, and
whither she should direct her course.” The seven churches of Asia
caine to be reckoned as symbols of so many different states. of the church
general; and the latter presented to the view of Romish expositors a
symbol of the Romish church, as affected by various events and pheno-
mena, during the whole period of her state as the church militant. The
anti-christian power, in the Apocalypse, was specially recognized in the
Saracens, and Mohammed was pointed out as the false prophet. The
number of the beast (666) was applied to the duration of the Moham-
medan power; and pope Innocent III. was able to rouse up nearly all
the churches of Europe, and enlist them in a Crusade, by virtue of an
appeal to them on such a ground.

On like grounds, the various heresies, (as the Romish church named
all opposition to itself), were regarded as having also been included and
predicted under the symbol of the false prophet. There never could be
any difficulty to an ingenious man, in pointing out many resemblances

460 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

between the prediction and the events or persons supposed to be pre»
dicted. Boundless scope was given to imagination, conjecture, witty
applications of certain expression the Apocalypse, and in a word to
everything but a truly historico-exegetical mode of exposition. With
deep regret I am compelled to add, that while the application of the
symbols in the Apocalypse has been greatly changed, in many respects,
from that which the Romish expositors maintained, yet the principle
itself which led to the making of the book a mere syllabus of civil and
ecclesiastical Mens, has been transferred unimpaired to the Protestant
' church, and remains, down to the present hour, as the current one in
England and in America. But the écast and the false prophet have
been applied ae a manner very different from that which the inventors
of such an exegesis intended; for they are now applied, by most Pro-
testants, to the corrupt Romish church itself and to her false teachers.
It is thus that a wrong begun in order to injure others, not unfrequently
comes down upon the heads of its inventors and perpetrators.

In the Romish church itself commentators have not been wholly want-
ing, who have made offensive applications of the Apocalypse to its cor-
ruptions. Such an one was the abbot Joacum, who in his Admiranda
Expositio Apocalypseos has given a new and peculiar turn to several
things. He divides the world into three states, viz. that of the Father,
which continued till the coming of Christ; secondly that of the Son,
which was to last until the Millennium ; thirdly that of the Spirit, which
is to be the great sabbatical period of the world... So far as I have been
able to trace the matter, he is the first who made out of 1260 days, in
Rey. 11: 8, as many years, during which the State of the Son was to
continue. ‘These years he regarded as then about coming to an end,
(fl. cent. XII.), and he urged with great earnestness a reformation upon
the churches. His book was not aimed against the pope directly ; but
when the latter quarrelled with the Franciscans, to which order Joachim
belonged, it would seem that they did not scruple to. insert passages in
Joachim’s book, which bore very hardly upon popery.

Other enemies of the Romish church, the Waldenses, the Wicliffites,
the Hussites, and others, did not fail to take the hint thus offered to
them. Rome, which had so long been endeavouring, by its exposition
of the Apocalypse, to put down first the Saracens, then all heretical
opposers of its own dogmas, now experienced in her turn a retribution
of the same nature. It was not difficult to satisfy such as groaned under
the Romish papal yoke, that Rey. xiii—xviii. might, with great pro-
priety, be applied to superstitious and tyrannizing and persecuting
Rome. \

But did the Reformation itself introduce any new method of interpre-
ting the Apocalypse, on grounds independent of party feeling, and sup-

\

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 461

ported by the essential and now generally acknowledged principles of
historico-philological exegesis ?

It laid the foundation for such an exegesis, by substantially adopting
it in the interpretation of the historical and doctrinal books of Scripture.
In the latter, the application was easy and obvious. But we have seen,
that not only Luther and his early followers slighted the Apocalypse,
but that such was the case with Zuingle and his friends. After the
credit of the Apocalypse began to revive and was generally established
among Protestants, more attention began to be given -. Revelation.
Yet the difficulty was still very great. Even the Hebrew prophets were
not, at that period, recognized as proper poets. How could the nature
of prophetic symbol, trope, and generally of the prophetic style, be well
understood at such a period? And if they were not, how could it be
expected that the Apocalypse would be interpreted in accordance with
enlightened principles of criticism? In some respects this is doubtless
the most difficult of all the prophetic books; and while exegesis was in
such an undefined state as at this period, it could not well be explained
from the stand-point which the more recent interpretation of the sacred
books has assumed. The temptation to make out a meaning from the
Apocalypse, which would be appropriate to party and sectarian pur-
poses, was very great; and for along time, few resisted this temptation.
Meanings directly opposite, defended by adverse parties, would of course
be the result of such methods of interpretation, Every interpretation
not grounded on proper historico-exegetical principles simply, must be
variable and shifting from side to side. Yet even to the present hour
there are many expositors of the Apocalypse, who do not appear to have
any adequate apprehension of this, and who endeavour to supply the
lack of principle by confidence of assertion.

Early in the sixteenth century, Erasmus and Laurentius VALLA
in their commentariés, aimed only at explaining occasionally the sense
of words in the Apocalypse. Erasmus, as we have seen, had doubts
about the apostolical origin of the book; and neither he nor Valla pre-
tended to know the meaning of it.

We have seen how decidedly Luruer rejected it at first; and also
how he gradually yielded to giving it some authority, on account of the
antipapistical use which could easily be made of it. In 1528 he found
and republished the famous and anonymous Oommentarius, written one
hundred years before his time, which applied the predictions of the Apoc-
alypse to the papacy. Finally, in 1534, Luther himself published some
comments on the Revelation ; which partook in a large measure of the
spirit of the age. He assumed that the Apocalypse was an epitome of
church-history ; and then, at his pleasure, searched for events here and
there, which he thought would accord with the apocalyptic descriptions.

o

462 a HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

For example, the little book in Rev. 10: 10, which was bitter and sweet
to John, he applies to the papacy with its great spiritual pretences. The
thousand years, Chap. xx, he “ee the time when the Apocalypse
was ¥ n, and extends it to the time of Gregory VII; and then he
recko 666 in 13: 18, as so many years from that time, during
which the anti-christian papacy will continue. Gog and Magog, he says,
aean the Turks and the red (?) Jews; and he expects the last judg-
ment to follo closely the appearance of these. Finally, he suggests
that the Apollliypse may be used for the consolation of Christians in
times of persecution and distress, and also for a warning against the in-
troduction aungerous and offensive errors into the church. |
This wo Luther became a kind of general model for succeeding
expositors in the Protestant churches. Downeven to the a:
the idea of regarding the Apocalypse as a compendium of eccle cal
and civil history, has been eagerly grasped at, and solicitously retained,
among far the greater mass of Protestant expositors. It has been kept
up by the same circumstances which introduced it, viz., the opposition of
Protestants to the Romish church and the papacy, and the ease with
which certain portions of the Apocalypse may be applied to them. The
fact that some portions of Rev. xii—xix. are altogether incompatible
with the idea of any but a heathen and truly idolatrous power which is
opposed to the church, is entirely overlooked, by reason of the many
traits of apparent resemblance to the corrupt Romish church, which can
be traced without much effort in the remainder.

»The general principle of considering the Apocalypse as'a compendium
of history, foreshadowed by symbol, prevailed not only among the Luthe-
ran, but also among the Reformed churches. To this there are but few ex-
ceptions among the Protestant commentators of those times. Such men,
for example, as Beza and Camerarius, move very cautiously in respect
to the Apocalypse, and limit themselves mostly to the explanation of
words and tropes. The practical uses of the book were not so widely
missed as its general meaning. Consolation amid trials, warning, re-
proof, above all the repulse of the papal claims, and the glorious hopes
of the future, were deduced from the Apocalypse, and were proclaimed
in the pulpit and from the press. The long continued and vigorous con-
test with the papacy gradually drew the attention of the: Lutheran di-
vines more and more to the Apocalypse, and reconciled them to it, be-
cause they could so easily convert it into a magazine of armour, which
might be employed in attacking the papal enemy, or in defending them-
selves.

Jt may easily be supposed, that while all was thus floating and uncer-
tain, while every one was at liberty to select facts from history which
he might bring into union with the predictions of the Apocalypse, a great

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 463

variety of particular modes of explanation would arise. Such was the
state of the case.. One, for example, dated the 1000 years from the birth
of Christ; another from his death ; ie from the establishment of a
Christian church ; a fourth from Constantine the Great, etc. Of course,
these considered the prediction of a Millennium as already a but
only in a spiritual sense; while some few looked forward to a terres-
trial reign of Christ, at some future period. So long as the times of the
Apocalypse remained undefined and unfixed, everything of course must
be in a floating state, when such a mode of i retation is adopted.
The new heavens and new earth and new J. Mem were more gene-
rally referred to a future state of blessedness.

It must of course be a result of applying Rev. xiii—xix. to the papacy,
that the 1000 years were considered as still future. In general a spirit-
ual view was taken of the meaning of the passage respecting this pe-
riod, and the gross Chiliasm of ancient times was repelled with much
positiveness.

Toward the end of the sixteenth century, JosepH ScaLiceR made
the declaration, that he understood the Apocalypse as far as the end of
the seven woes ; beyond this, he could not settle the question, whether it
belonged to the past or the future. Later than the time of saying this,
he seems to have had doubts about the apostolic origin of the book. It
was he that uttered the famous declaration respecting Calvin, who did
not comment upon the book of Revelation, which has been so often re-
peated, and is still often addressed to those who undertake to explain
the Apocalypse, viz., “ Calvinus sapit, quod in Apocalypsin non scripsit.”

It might of course be expected, that the Romish church would not be
idle, while the Protestant interpreters were so busy in applying the beast
and the false prophet of the Apocalypse to the papacy. Cardinal Brr-
LARMIN especially undertook to show that the ‘Antichrist of the Apoca-
lypse was yet to come; De Rom. Pontif. III. 38. The Spanish Jesuit
Riserra (f 1591), in his commentary on the Apocalypse (1591), aims,
however, more at illustrating the grammatical and historical sense of the
book, and seems shy of adopting a mystical sense. The strain of his
work is more impartial than was common at that period.

Near the commencement of the seventeenth century (1614), the Span-
ish Jesuit Lupovicus as ALcassaR published his Vestigatio arcant
Sensis in Apocalypsi ; a performance distinguished by one remarkable
feature, which was then new. He declared the Apocalypse to be a
continuous and connected work, making regular advancement from be-
ginning to end, as parts of one general plan in the mind of the writer,
In conformity with this he brought out a result which has been of great
importance to succeeding commentators. Rey. v—xi-, he thinks, ap-
plies to the Jewish enemies of the Christian church ; xi—xix. to hea-

464. § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

then Rome and carnal and worldly powers; xx—xxii. to the final
conquests to be made by the church, and also to its rest, and its ulti-
mate glorification. This view of the contents of the book had been
merely hinted before, by Hentenius, in the Preface to his Latin Version
of Arethas, Par. 1547. 8vo.; and by Salmeron in his Praeludia in
Apoc. But no one had ever developed this idea fully, and endeavoured
to illustrate and enforce it, in such a way as Alcassar. He applies chap.
xiii—xix. of course only to heathen Rome ; and finds the fulfilment. in
its conversion to Christianity. Although he puts the time of composing
the Apocalypse down to the exile of John under Domitian, yet he still
applies chap. y—xi. to the Jews, and of course regards the book as part-
ly embracing the past.

It might be expected, that a commentary which thus freed the Rom-
ish church from the assaults of Protestants, would be popular among the
advocates of the papacy. Alcassar met, of course, with general appro-
bation and reception among the Romish community.

In 1618, Davip Pararvs, a man of distinguished erudition among
the Protestants, published a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which was
designed to oppose the views of Alcassar, and to defend the application
of chap. xiii—xix. to the papacy. Grammatical and archaeological in-
vestigations, moreover, were not neglected by him. It was peculiar to
him, that he first advanced and defended the idea, that the Apocalypse
is in the form of a drama; an idea which Eichhorn has taken great
pains to defend and adorn. But although Paraeus was in an error here,
yet the internal investigation of the plan of the book was greatly promo-
ted, by thus bringing before the minds of readers questions of this na-
ture. - But antipapistie commentary found its acme in the exegetical
work of Hor von Honree (1610—1640), which was so violent, that
even most Protestants declared it to be “ Classicum belli sacri contra
Pontificios,” and deemed it extravagant; while others of a more enthu-
silastic temperament praised it very highly.

From this time forward, one particular explanation of the Apocalypse
gave place to another, in constant succession. There was no general
agreement as to the beginning and end of periods, or of the modes of
reckoning them. Days were made into years by some; and prophetic
days, months, and years, were distinguished from ceil ones. What
helped to increase the confusion was, that Daniel and Ezekiel were
brought into parallelism with the Apocalypse, and even Canticles was
appealed to by some, for the like purpose. Each one, as is usual, found
all others who differed from him to be arbitrary in their exegesis ; and
they, more than suspected him of the same.

In 1627, Joszepu Merve published his famous Clavis Apocalyptica,
which has been so often appealed to by almost all subsequent English

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 465

writers on the Apocalypse. The peculiarity of his scheme is, that all
the leading events in the book are made to be synchronistic or contem-
poraneous. The hint was taken from the forty-two months in Rev. xi.
and xiii. Having fixed on sameness of time for the events in vi—xi,
and xiii—xix., of course the exposition must be conformed to this. Ac-
cordingly, the seven seals upon the book written within and without
(5: 1), are symbols of so many successive states of the Roman empire,
from the time of Vespasian. The seven trumpets only serve to explain
the complex import of the seventh seal; and the correspondences to
these he finds in the continued history of the Roman empire. As the
last part of the book is synchronistic, it must of course be explained ina
manner conformed to this. Nothing, indeed, can be more arbitrary, than
his whole treatment of his subject, notwithstanding the good degree of
learning which he has displayed. His views were soon called in ques-
tion ; and he defended them with zeal and much sincerity. They were
at last fundamentally overthrown by Vitringa, in his Anacrisis Apoca-
lypseos, published in 1705, pp. 230 seq. (See a more particular view of
Mede’s book, in Comm. Introduct. to chap. vi. seq.) The main position
of synchronism in the different portions of the book, is most palpably
against the whole tenor of the book, which, with some trifling exceptions,
is progressive in its plan.

In the sequel, some interpreters fell upon the old plan of supposing
that the seven epistles to the seven churches were symbolic of the seven
successive periods or states of the churches; and the rest of the book
was of course made subservient to this. Some regarded the several
heptades of the book as synchronistic ; others, as successive. Of course
every kind of exegesis and of artifice was resorted to, in order to make
out a probability for each one’s interpretation. Finally, Coccrrus and
his followers undertook to establish dogmatically the period-system.
Soon, however, Wrrstus and JoHANNES MArkius made efforts to op-
pose and refute his opinions. But the latter, in his Commentarius, has
adopted the principle of repetition of the same things, in the Apocalypse,
instead of a progressive development; and so the whole book is of course
brought into confusion.

About the middle of the 17th century, appeared the Commentary of
Grorius. That philological, historical, and archaeological explanations
of the language would be found in him, was of course to be expected by
all who knew him. But he went further. He adopted, for substance,
the outlines of Alcassar’s views. The persecuting Jews, and persecu-
ting heathen Rome, were the main objects of chapter iv—xix; then
the flourishing state of the church. Yet he hit upon some peculiarities
which will not bear examination. For example; the thousand years
began with Constantine’s edict in favour of Christianity, A. D. 311;

VOL. I. a9 |

466 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

the end of these, in the 14th century, was when the Ottoman power and

Mohammedans broke into Asia’ Minor and Greece. These of course
were the Gog and Magog of the Apocalypse. But notwithstanding
some things of this nature, Grotius has given many a good hint, and
made not a few fine remarks.on the language of the Apocalypse.. On
the whole, he helped to prepare the way for further and better efforts in
regard to this book.

The theological sentiments among the reigning part of Protestants,
at this period, hindered the favourable reception of Grotius’ work; but
more particularly were Protestants displeased with him, for interpreting
the Apocalypse as though its main aim was not against the papacy.
Few ventured, for a long time, to follow him in this respect. Among
these few, were Hammonv and Le Crierc; neither of whom, for sey-
eral reasons, found general favour among Protestants. In various par-
ticulars, with regard to the application of some smaller portions of the
Apocalypse, these two writers differed from Grotius and from each other.
But the main scheme was the same.

_ In 1696, Perersnn, by his Geheimnisse der heilig. Offenbarung geé ff-
net, ete., attempted to revive the old idea of a terrestrial reign of Christ
on earth. But this met with very vigorous opposition. Even the sober
and excellent P. J. SpeNER, (who admitted the antipapal exegesis, but
believed that the Apocalypse has revealed the future conversion of the |
Jews and the final overthrow of Antichrist), on account of his suspected
leaning toward the Millenarians, found but little favour as to his apo-
calyptic labours.

Among the Romanists, in 1690 appeared the famous work of J. B.
BossvsEt, entitled L’ Apocalypse avec une Explication. The talents,
profound learning, flowing and popular style, and winning address, of
this celebrated writer, all contributed to procure extensive favour for his
work among the adherents to the Romish hierarchy. | His general plan
is this. The history of the church is divided into three periods; the
sorrows of the church are comprised in Rev. v—xix; the dominion of
the church, in 20: 1—10; the period of its last trial is comprised in the
remainder ; and this last trial is immediately followed by the general
resurrection and the judgment. The final glorification of the church
completes the whole. ‘The first period, chapter y—xix, he divides be-
tween the Jewish enemies of the church, y—xi, and heathen Romish
enemies, Xii—xix. The two witnesses in chapter xi, are Christian
martyrs. From this chapter onward, he concentrates all in the perse-
cution of the church under Diocletian ; ; in whose name he finds 666
concealed. It is obvious, therefore, that there must be much in the ex-
ecution of his plan which savours of the arbitrary. But there is so
much talent and tact displayed, in the manner of exhibiting the writer's

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 467

views, and there are so many fine thoughts developed in the work, and
so much of skilful defence of the papacy, which still does not assume
the form of defence or at least of polemics, that no one can wonder at
the celebrity which this book of Bossuet speedily obtained, and which it
has hitherto maintained, in the Romish church. It is a book which may
be read with profit by any well informed reader, even at the present
time. The occasional extravagances of it, to call them nothing more,
need not prevent this. ‘That such can be found, may easily be shown.
The locusts in chapter 9: 1 seq., Bossuet represents as symbolizing the
heretics of the ancient church; and the end of the 1000 years in
chapter xx. he refers to the appearance of the Turks in Europe and to
the breaking out of the Lutheran heresy! One can hardly suspect that
this is anything more than a mere piece of waggery, in such a man as
Bossuet.

But few Romish commentators have written on the Apocalypse since
the time of Bossuet. ‘These, however, have all trodden in his foot-steps ;
and his work remains as a kind of regulative among Papists, in respect
to their views of the Revelation.

A few years after Bossuet’s work was published, (in 1705), appeared
the great work of Camprcrus ViTRINGA, entitled Anacrisis Apokalyp-
seos. In appropriate learning, in patient and extensive research, in a
wide-spread knowledge of Hebrew, Rabbinic, Greek, and ancient and
modern history, he excelled all his predecessors, and probably all his
followers. Vitringa did not reject philological, archaeological, or histori-
eal sources, in explaining the Apocalypse. He made diligent and ex-
tensive use of all; and his book remains, even down to the present
time, a rich store-house of information in these respects—one which has
not yet been exhausted. Vitringa was dissatisfied with Grotius and
with Bossuet. He wrote partly in opposition to both. But his system
of interpretation is, in one leading respect, like that of most Protestants
who had preceded him. Corrupted Christian Rome is, with him, a
leading object in the Apocalypse. But he embraces pagan Rome also.
His general view of the book is curious. Excepting a short prologue
and epilogue, the work is thus divided: The first part, 1: 9—3: 22, in-
dicates, by the seven epistles, etc., the seven different periods or ¢nter-
nal states of the churches, down to the end of time ; 4: 1—22: 3 exhib-
its the external condition and circumstances of the church; the remain-
der shows the state of the church in both these respects. Then as to:
the second portion of the Apocalypse, 4: 1—22: 3, it is subdivided into
three visions, viz. 4: 2—8: 1. 8: 2—11:19, and 12: 1—22: 3. The
first of these exhibits the external state of the church from the time of
Trajan down to the end of the world; the second depicts Rome, hea-
then and Christian, under'the image of Jerusalem; the third is Rome

468 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

antichristian, its contest, its fall, etc. It is unnecessary to give a fuller
view of his scheme here; and in order to avoid repetition, I refrain
from it. The reader will find such a view in the Introduction to chap.
vi. in the Commentary.

While we readily concede, then, to Vitringa more learning, ability,
and eyen tact in some respects, than to any of his predecessors, it is still
clear, that from the very nature of his plan he must launch widely into
the field of boundless conjecture. His supposed repetitions of the same
topics, without any regular order; his symbolical views of the seven
epistles; his separation of the internal and external history of the
churches ; his mixture of pagan Rome and apostate Christian Romes,
his application of death on the pale horse to the Saracens and the
Turks; of the fifth seal to the Waldenses and Albigenses and other
modern martyrs ; of the sixth seal either to the destruction of the Jew-
ish Commonwealth, or the political changes under Constantine, or the
commotions in Europe at the time of the Reformation, or to the destruc-
tion of Antichrist, (a rare specimen of guessing); his separating of the
seven trumpets entirely from their connection with the seventh seal;
his allegation that the half-hour’s silence in heaven indicates a long-con-
tinued (?) and peaceful and happy state of the,church ; these, and many
more of the like things of which his book is full, show that this great
man was making his way hither and thither, with large and unintermit-
ted steps indeed, but often by twilight, and always without any certain
compass to guide him. He had, one may concede, a plan of his own,
and was true enough to that. But although many commentators who
preceded him said more extravagant things than he, yet few if any have
on the whole developed a more arbitrary plan. His book may still be
consulted with profit.. But in recent times, I should doubt whether any
can be found who are his real followers. His work is one of the most
laboured of all his performances ; but it is unlucky in its plan. In. one
respect he differs widely from a large mass of Protestant commentators.
He has no apprehension, that by the designation of times in the Apoca-
lypse, any specific chronology is intended. On 11; 2, 3 he remarks,
that the notation of time is only an Old Testament. analogy, and that
what is meant by it is, that the time of persecution is one that is defi-
nitely fixed by God, and cannot exceed its bounds. “Would that oth-
ers had been equally prudent in regard to this matter!” exclaims Liicke :
and I can heartily unite with him.

Vitringa, from his weight of character, found a ready hearing among
Protestants. His book, although very large, went through three edi-
tions in less than twenty years. Yet, in the sequel, some began again
to revive the discussions about the definite limitation of times in the
Apocalypse. WiLtiam Walston, at Cambridge, mathematician and

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 469

theologian, went in great earnest into this subject. He showed, as he
believed, from the book of Daniel, that a prophetic day must mean a
year. In his Essay on the Revelation (1706), he assigned the return
and coming of Christ to the year 1715... When this time had passed,
without any tokens of fulfilment, he renewed his calculations, and brought
out 1766. But as he died in 1752, he had no opportunity to correct,
for a third time, the dates which he had twice brought out with a kind
of mathematical assurance. But the experiment has been renewed
nearly every five or ten years since, in the English world, and in the
United States. This very year, we, in this country, have passed the
boundary assigned by a large number of enthusiastic men, for the com-
ing of the Lord. But all this avails nothing with individuals of an en-
thusiastic stamp. As soon as one period has disappointed their caleu-
lations, they commence de novo with a determination to find another.
Generally the last period on which they fix, is beyond their probable
natural life. In this way they avoid the vexation of another disap-
pointment.

Among others, at this period, who speculated largely upon the desig-
nations of time in the Apocalypse, was a follower of Cocceius, ANTHONY
Driessen. His Meditationes, so far as I know, may claim the credit of
the discovery, that the thousand years of chap. xx. mean a period each
day of which is a year or 360 days; so that the millennial period is to
comprise 360,000 years. Followers here and there he has had; par-
ticularly in England and America.

In 1740 J. Atsert Bence published his famous work on the
Apocalypse, Erklarten Offenbarung Johannis. The designation of time
is the leading object. Merits the work has of a distinguished exegetical
order. The author was one of the most learned, sober, and expert exe-
getes of his time; and everywhere does he manifest piety and an amia-
ble spirit. Some twenty years did he spend principally on apocalyptic
study ; and with special reference to fixing specifically the times of ful-
filment. His calculations I shall not attempt to detail. The grand key
is 666, in 13: 18. The 42 months of the same chapter are, he thinks,
of equal extent; so that each prophetic month is equal to 15$ years,
and a prophetic day to half a year. With these assumed elements he
finally brought out 1836 as the culmination-point—the grand crisis—of
the great events predicted in the Apocalypse. He speaks modestly, but
yet with entire assurance that there is no error in his calculation. But
still he provides for the possibility of failure; and says, that in such a
case, one must apply himself diligently to find out the source of the er-
ror that has been committed. We have passed 1836, and without any
suspicion of a crisis in the affairs of the church or the world. Of course
we now know what to think of Bengel’s scheme. But the exhibition of

470 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

such a strange mixture of piety, humility, philological acuteness, tact,
sound judgment in some respects, and other good qualities, with enthu-
siasm, mistaken principles as to scriptural designations of time, caprice
even in making out the relations of these to each other, confidence in
the certainty of his calculations, and deep interest in the successful re-
ception of them, can be presented, I believe, by few other books that
ever were written. Pity that so valuable a life should be thus wasted !

Bengel found favour with some; and a part of his apocalyptic works
were translated into English, and some into Danish. But he was also
opposed by some; specially by J. G. Pfeiffer, in his Newer Versuch,
1788. Yet he had many defenders, here and there; and even down to
the present time his work has not ceased, now and then, to be brought
before the public as worthy of their attention.

The great mass of the religious public became, at last, wearied out
with the extravagances and the errors of apocalyptic interpreters. This
prepared the way for ABAuzzit, in his Hssay on the Apocalypse (see p.
443 above), to broach the idea, that the whole book relates to the de-
struction of Judea and Jerusalem. His starting point was, that the
book itself declares that all which it predicts would take place speedily.
Hence Rome, in chap. xiii—xix. points figuratively to Jerusalem. Chap.
xxi. xxii. relate to the extension of the church, after the destruction of
the Jews.

The same ground was substantially adopted by WETSTEIN, in his
edition of the New Testament. Chap. xii. and seq. he refers to civil
wars in Italy. The 1000 years dwindle down to 50, from Domitian’s
death down to the end of the Jewish war under-Adrian. Gog and Ma-
gog are found in Barchocheba and his rebellion ; and the heavenly Je-
rusalem is only a type of the happy state of the church on earth, which
will finally take place. (See fuller development in Commentary, Intro-
duction to chap. vi.). In point of extravagance of application, and ar-
bitrary suppositions, scarcely any one can exceed what Wetstein has
exhibited. ;

Wotrivs, in his Curae Philologicae, collects and criticises upon what
others have said; but in passages of difficulty he withholds his own
judgment.

HARENBERG, in his Erklérung, concentrates the mass of the book up-
on Jerusalem and Palestine. But from chap. xix, he supposes it goes
on to the end of all things. His object was, to unite the older and the
more recent method of interpreting the book. But his paradoxical as-
sumptions are so many, that the sober reader, although the author is a
sensible man, becomes disinclined toward adopting such interpretations.

SEMLER, who attacked so violently the canonical credit of the book,
has given only generalities as to interpretation. He speaks of it as sym-

EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 471

bolizing changes, calamities, portentous signs, etc. ; and also great pros-
perity and happiness to the church; but he did not put an estimate on
the book, which would lead him to make much effort for the interpreta-
tion of it.

Soon after Semler had made war upon the Apocalypse, and it was
threatened with exclusion from the Canon in Germany, Hrrprr pub-
lished his Maran Atha or Book of the Coming of the Lord, 1779. With
all his exquisite and cultivated. taste, Herder was not distinguished for
ability as a mere exegete or interpreter. On the score of grammatical
and historical interpretation, not much ground was won by him for the
Apocalypse. But in regard to the rhetorical character of the book and
on the score of aesthetics, Herder’s work was really the commencement
of anew era. Never had the Apocalypse a more enthusiastic and de-
yoted interpreter. Never before was the nature of its poetic representa-
tions so fully and finely unfolded. The man who wrote that peculiar book,
the Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, must needs be qualified in respect to taste
and aesthetical skill to make a right estimate of the Apocalypse. Her-
der’s work is all soul and animation, through and through. It is easy to
see, that the commentator entered upon his work and accomplished it
with the highest degree of interest and pleasure. The vivid pictures
and glowing language which he presented to his readers, served to cre-
ate more interest in the Apocalypse, and to procure more favour with
the public for it, than all the ponderous folios and quartos which had be-
fore been published. Nor has the aesthetical judgment of the public
been materially changed, since Herder gave it a new direction.

Regarded simply as a book of critical exegesis, Herder’s work can-
not well be said to claim a high place. He ‘adopted Abauzit’s stand-
point, and makes everything important in the book relate to the Jewish
history. This is a fundamental error, and must of course substantially
affect the character of the exegesis. But there is so much of ingenuity
and of eloquence, there are such bursts of feeling and flow of heart, in
all that Herder says, that his book remains, down to the present hour,
with all its errors in interpretation, the most attractive and delightful
work that has yet been written upon the Apocalypse. In particular, the
skill which he manifests, in showing that “it is a book for all hearts and
for all times” (p. 257 seq.), and so is one of an important practical
character, has not been surpassed, perhaps not equalled, by any other
writer. And although he seems to. move in a narrow circle, as to the
meaning of the book, limiting it so generally to the Jews, yet he makes
God’s dealings with them, and with his church at that period, symboli-
cal of the circumstances of the church in every age. The kingdom of
Christ will ever be victorious over all its enemies.

Harrwice followed Herder, and wrote three yolumes on the Apoca-

472 § 27. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE

lypse, full of learning and the fruits of labour. In his Apology for the
Apocalypse against mistaken Blame and mistaken Praise, he laboriously
defends the genuineness of the book; but in his Commentary, he fol-
lows on in the track of Herder. In one respect he differs from him,
and accords with Paracus, viz., that the form of the Apocalypse is dra-
matic. Herder’s oriental taste secured him against this ; but in this re-
spect, Hartwig was lacking.

UERRENSCHNEIDER, in his Zentamen Apocalapseos illustrandae,
(1786), a work distinguished for its discrimination and ability, found in
the Apocalypse the overthrow of Judaism and of Heathenism, and the
universal triumph of the church. ‘This was so ably defended by him,
that Ercuuorn, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, seems to have
made him a model, in regard to general plan. This last work, publish-
ed in 1791, gave entire new life to apocalyptic study, and for some
twenty-five or thirty years seems to have had almost an entire predom-
inance in Germany. It is Eichhorn’s ablest work; and although it
does not exhibit such ardour and intensity of interest as Herder’s book,
yet as a work of philology and real explanation of words and phrases,
it far exceeds Herder’s work. It is indeed the first work which seems
to have taken fully the position, that everything in the Apocalypse is to
be illustrated in the same way, as in any other work of a similar na-
ture in the Old Testament. The learning and taste of the author ena-
bled him to exhibit many a happy and striking illustration of words and
phrases and imagery. He has given an interest to the book, in this re-
spect, which none before him had done. Herder outdid him in glow
and eloquence ; but Eichhorn is not wanting in taste, and is highly re-
spectable in this work for his philology.

The main features of his exegesis have already been indicated. Sub-
stantially they agree with the general tenor of the book. But in the
detail, there are some extravagances which will not now find favour.
E. g. in 11: 2 seq., Eichhorn finds the two witnesses to be the two Jew-
ish high priests, Ananus and Jesus, murdered by the Zealots; while
nothing can be clearer, than that the writer produces them as Christian
witnesses, zoi¢ wcotvot “ov. But Herder had committed the same
error; and the real meaning in this case is so difficult, that a mistake is
not to be thought strange. Eichhorn’s work was found fault with by
some, and in my apprehension with good reason, because it places the
whole composition of the Apocalypse, on the ground of a mere exercise
of the inventive powers of poetic imagination. I do not perceive why
more than this may not be admitted ; unless indeed, we deny that ¢n-
sptration is a reality. Iam aware, to be sure, that very many do deny
this. But, while I cannot agree with them, I still admit that the Apoca-
lypse, as to its form, has all the indicia of art and rhetorical disposition

| EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 473

or arrangement. What objection can there be to admitting, that when
God speaks to men, he speaks more humano? The alphabetic Psalms,
especially Ps. exix, Prov. xxxi, the book of Lamentations, and many
portions of the prophets, afford striking exhibitions of the truth of this. I
do not and cannot regard Eichhorn as a believer in Christianity, in the
‘sense in which those are who admit the inspired authority of the Scrip-
ture. But I can see no objection to accepting thankfully whatever aid
he has proffered, in order to illustrate the words, phrases, and imagery
‘of the Apocalypse. » We need not depend on him for our theology.

‘Herrions, in his Apocalypsis Illustrata, has added very little to what

Eichhorn and Herder had already exhibited; while, now and then, he
indulges in some peculiar extravagances. Other commentators, such
as Lange,’ Hagen, Lindemann, Matthai, ete., are of little significance.
The Commentary of Ewatp however, (1828), deserves a very differ-
ent character. The book is small, but full of thought and illustration.
Being a philologist of much higher acquisitions than most of those who
had preceded him in writing upon this book, he has brought all his He-
brew learning to bear upon it, and often with signal advantage. The
. outlines of his general plan are these: (1) The day of vengeance on the
enemies of the church, or of Christ’s coming, is near, chap. iv-—vii ;
‘vengeance begins and progresses, 8: 1—11: 14; vengeance is comple-
ted, 8: 15—22: 5. So he makes no catastrophe at the end of chap. xi,
and even represents the author as sparing Jerusalem out of partiality
for his own kindred. The artificial arrangement of the book he fully
sees, in respect to its heptades, and in regard to some of its triads. But
‘the latter he has only here and there noticed, omitting to bring into
view the three great catastrophes; the three heptades symbolic of
punishment, i. e. the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials; and
also most of the triplicities, which, in every part of the book small and
great, everywhere develope themselves. Ewald’s critical skepticism is
too well known to expect from him any acknowledgment of the divine
authority of the book, or of real prediction in it. With him, it is of the
same order as the Pollio of Virgil, i. e.the expression ‘of the earnest
wishes and hopes of a warm-hearted but enthusiastic Christian ; who,
in all probability, believed himself to have been aided by the Spirit of
‘God in the composition of the book. We are not. bound to follow him
here ; but we may acknowledge with thankfulness many an important
philological suggestion, many an illustration made fully satisfactory, and
many an exegetical error of preceding interpreters corrected.

Other recent writers on the Apocalypse, in Germany, scarcely de-
serve notice. Of the enthusiastic Bengelian order was M. F. Semler,
Jung Stilling, Typke, Gerken, Opitz, Leutwein, Rihle von Lilienstern,
Sander, ete. -The last wrote in 1829, and he finds that the commence-

VOL. I. 60

474 § 27. EXEGESIS OF THE APOCALYPSE.

ment of the Millennium will be in 1847. He has a little the advantage
of the recent Millenarians of our own country, who placed. it first im
1842; then in 1843; next in April, and then in October, of 1844; and
who now conclude, that we ought to live in daily expectation of it until
it comes. A more recent work on the Apocalypse by Ziillig, of which
I have only seen an ample review, has excited some attention in Ger-
many. But from the extravagance of some of its positions, I should
not think that it could possibly acquire and maintain a good reputation.

Liicke, who has written so large and able a book in the way of Jn-
troduction to the Apocalypse, has not yet published a’ Commentary.
Whenever he does, the public have reason to believe that some acces-
sion will be made to the exegetical: ground already. won for the Apoca-
lypse. e

In the Enelish world, nearly everything has moved on in accordance
with the older Protestant views, viz. that the beast and false prophet
are symbols of the Romish papal church. Bishop Newron on. the
Prophecies is a book too well known to need description here. — Since
the present century came in, some of the leading works in England are
the following: Whitaker, on the Revelation, 1802; Galloway, Brief
Commentaries on’ Revelation, 1802 ; Woodhouse, on the Apocalypse,
1805; Holmes’ Revelation of St. John, 1815, 2 vol.;. A. Fuller’s Ex-
pository Discourses, 1815; W. Cunningham, Dissertation on the Seals
and ‘Trumpets, 1817; Gauntlett’s Exposition of Revelation, 1821;
Tilloch’s Dissertations, 1828; Culbertson’s Lectures, 1826, 2 vol-;
Croly’s Apocalypse, 1827; Woodhouse on the Apocalypse, 1828;
Hutcheson’s Guide to the Study of Revelation, 1828 ; The Apocalypse
explained (anon.), 1829; W. Jones’ Lectures on the Apocalypse, 1829 ;
E. Irving’s Lectures on Revelation, 1829; Addis’ Heaven opened, or
the visions of Daniel and John explained, 1829.

In our own country books designed to be explanatory of the Apoca-
lypse are not wanting. Kinne, Smith, Prof. Bush, and others, have
published on this subject. But as their works are well known to read-
ers here, it is unnecessary to characterize them. —

Thus have I given a brief sketch of what has been done in past times,
in relation to the Apocalypse. That the book has suffered more than
any one in the Bible, from extravagant and arbitrary exegesis, no one will
deny who is acquainted with its exegetical history. — It is to be hoped that
some progress may be made in these days of exegetical study, toward a
firmer and more satisfactory mode of interpretation. What possible sat-
isfaction, indeed, can ever be felt by a rational man, in any interpreta-
tion which rests upon mere surmise or fancy? And such must ever be
all those interpretations, which result. from considering the book as a
mere compendium of civil and ecclesiastical history. But this has been

§ 28. APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR GENERAL USE. 475

practised so long, and Protestant feeling is so deeply enlisted against the
Romish church, that the chance of substituting a better method of exege-
sis speedily, is probably but small... Yet it must come at last. It will
come, whether we choose or refuse. The radical principles of herme-
neutics are every year gaining ground; and inasmuch as they are found-
ed in reason and common sense, they must sooner or later become tri-
umphant.*

§ 28. Is the Apocalypse designed and adapied for the use of the Christian
church in every age ?

This question must be somewhat strictly defined, before a satisfactory
answer to it can well be made out.

‘There are some parts of the Scriptures, which, in one sense, have
ceased to be specially useful tothe church, as now existing under the
Christian dispensation. We might select, for example, the. architectu-
ral directions for building the tabernacle, and the history of its construc-
tion in accordance with them, as contained in the book of Exodus. We
might advert to many parts of the Pentateuch, occupied entirely with the

. minute detail.of rites and forms under the Levitical priesthood. We
might mention many long and minute catalogues of persons and places,
such as the book of Joshua, the first of Chronicles, and also the books
of Ezra.and Nehemiah exhibit; we might. even include many portions
of individual history, and the accounts of some apparently unimportant
transactions, in the book of Genesis, and in some other books; and per-
haps it would. not be too much to add, that. some of the prophecies re-
specting small and comparatively insignificant nations, bordering upon,
the Jews, who have long been blotted from the face of the earth, and in
whose destiny we can now have no definite interest, are no longer of

:

* It is proper that [ should acknowledge explicitly, in this place, my obligations
to Prof. Licke for the matter furnished me in his luminous and well arranged
History of the Interpretation of the Apocalypse, contained in his Hinleitung pp.
420 seq. In particular, with respect to several of the works which are character-
ized in the sketch contained in the present Section, I have been obliged to depend
solely on him, because { could not procure a sight of the books in question.. But
the more important ones have been within my reach; and what I have said of
them is principally the result of my own examination, although this substantially
agrees, for the most part, with the views which he has suggested. The value to
the reader of what is said, will not be changed by’ this statement; but it is incum-
bent on me to acknowledge my sources, where I have drawn directly from them,
for I do not like to incur a just charge of plagiarism. ‘Throughout this work, it
has been my constant endeavour to see with my own eyes, and to think for myself,
whenever circumstances rendered it possible. But in a case like that under con-
sideration, where works are characterized to which [ could not procure access, I
have of course been obliged to depend on others.

476° _) § $98, APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR

special moral benefit to the church of Christ. For if the subject. should
be viewed in the simple light in which this. question would present: it,
viz., What moral and spiritual edification is now derivable from such
portions of Scripture ? it would seem that such an opinion might be made
up without much difficulty, inasmuch as the moral and spiritual instrue-
tion of such parts of Scripture can be made out by no direct and natural -
method of interpretation. We must resort to what is called spiritualiz-
ing, i. e. we must assign a vadvoid, or secret and mystic sense, to the
“words of the sacred writers in order to educe from such parts of the Bi-
ble the instruction now under consideration. “But such a resort is of it-
self a confession, that a moral and spiritual meaning cannot be given to
those parts of the Bible that have just been named, unless the usual and
obvious laws of interpretation are abandoned.

Tf the question should now be urged: Why then were such. sueillbions
permitted to be comprised in the Holy Scriptures? itis not so difficult to
give an answer, as some who urge it might imagine. .To the church of
God as formerly constituted, and embodied in the Jewish nation, all these
matters were connected with considerations of no small importance.
Everything respecting the tabernacle, the priesthood, the ‘Mosaic ritual,
the genealogies of the tribes and families, even the private history of
the ancient patriarchs, was civilly, socially, or religiously important. Be-
cause that tabernacle, ritual, divisions of tribes and corresponding inheri-
tances, and even individual interest in some of the ancient patriarchs have
passed away, through the lapse of some thousands of years and the in-
troduction of a new dispensation, how does or can it follow, that the
things named were. not in former times a matter of concern and interest
to the Jewish nation and church as God’s chosen people ?

Then, moreover, we need not stop even here. When we now come
to examine the genuineness of the Old: Testament writings, in order to
satisfy our minds whether they were actually written by Jews, as they
purport to have been, and whether they were received by the Jewish
nation, and looked upon as authentic, and reverenced as such, every par-
ticular that I haye named. above, that may now. be regarded as Ina
good measure destitute of direct moral and spiritual instruction for us,
and as superseded in a certain sense by the Gospel, plainly acts an in
portant part; for it gives testimony which cannot well be set aside or
overlooked, that the Hebrew Scriptures are the genuine productions of
Jewish writers. Every: minute personal teal even every special list
of the pieces of furniture for the tabernacle, or specifie account of rites
and forms, and every catalogue of names either. of persons or places,
goes to establish the verisimilitude of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole,
and to show that they are no work of fiction executed by an impostor.

Placed in this light, then, our question assumes entirely a new atti-

t

\

THE CHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 477

tude; and if we should now be asked, whether those parts of the Old
Testament that have been named as destitute in one respect of moral
and spiritual instruction adapted to us, are not.even of high importance
in another respect, as contributing to the credibility of the sacred books
in general, and helping to establish their authenticity—if, I say, this
question should. be now repeated, we may unhesitatingly assume, that
all Seripture is profitable. And if some parts are not directly “doc-
trine, or correction, or reproof,’ they at least serve to confirm those
parts of the Bible which teach doctrine and administer reproof.

Paul has given us a very simple, and (I may add) a very instructive,
exhibition of the uses to which Old Testament: history may now be
put. Speaking of what came upon the Jews, during their journey
through the wilderness, he says: “ Now all these things happened unto
them for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, wpon
whom the ends.of the world are come,’ 1 Cor..10: 11. And again,
when speaking of their punishments : ‘“‘ Now these things were exam-
ples for us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also
lusted,” 1 Cor. 10: 6.

The simple principle which lies at the basis of all. is, that as God is
always the same, and the relations which men sustain toward him are
always substantially the same; so, what he did in ‘one age, or at one
time, and to one nation, in order to encourage virtue and holiness, or to
restrain vice and impiety, he will in substance always do, everywhere
and to all nations. In the manner of his proceedings there may be, and
is, some diversity. The matter, as to rewards and punishments, as to re-—
" quirements and prohibitions, is and must. be always for substance the
_ same.

So then the ancient Scriptures may after all profit us ; even what was
local, and particular, and temporary, and what can never in all respects
be repeated or occur again, may sometimes be of no small importance
to us at the present day. We may at least learn instructive history
from it. Wemay regard it as.a.record of God’s providential, or of his
retributive dealings ; and from these we: may learn something both in
respect to, his. nature and his will.

In saying these things, I have had. my eye continually upon the
Apocalypse. Here is a book, which, if I have rightly unfolded its aim,
contains things that relate to the past, the present, and the future. If
we should say now that all which respects the destruction of the Jewish
persecuting power can no longer be a matter of any interest to us;
what is this but to say, that from the past we can gather no lessons of
importance in respect to the future; or that we can discover no ground
of encouragement, by the fact that God has fulfilled one prediction, that
he will fulfil another? But this we cannot well say, as reasonable and

478 § 28: APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR

sober men: and therefore, when the matter is viewed in this light, there
can be no difficulty made with the Apocalypse, or serious objection
raised against it, because some part of it was specially local and tem-
porary.

‘But there is another light in which the matter may be placed, that is
attended with more apparent difficulty. The book, it may be said, has
respect to persceuting Jews, persecuting PAGAN Rome, and Gog and
Magog (enemies yet unknown) ; and to all appearance, it pertains only.
to these. If this be so, of what general use can it be to the church of
God, at the present day, and throughout the world ? :

Several answers may be given to this question, all of which seem to
have some good foundation.

(1) It is not certain, that the second catastrophe, in the full extent of
its meaning, has yet taken place. Persecuting Rome, exerting her de-
structive power through pagan-emperors, is indeed fallen. The nation
and the government, as they existed in ancient times, are no more. But
all the consequences of their past.existence and actions, have not yet
ceased ; nor is it certain that the distant parts of the empire, distant in
the sense of the Apocalypse, have yet come to the great battle of Ar-
mageddon. . And if this be the case, the church has still a deep interest
in the matter of the’ Apocalypse. ‘

Besides, the 1000 years of peace and rest are yet future. The defeat
of Gog and Magog is still to come, The latter days of peace and glory
are yet to ensue. And how can all this be matter of little or no interest
to the church at any period? But,

(2) There is another and different view not yet taken, and which is
the principal one at which I aim in the present discussion. What has
been said already, has been designed merely as a preparation for this
part of our discussion.

I regard the Apocalypse as containing matter, which is a zézo¢ of all
which is to happen in respect to the church. I regard the whole book as
particular illustration of a general principle—of a generic truth. My
reasons for this may now be briefly stated.

With the apostle Paul we may safely aver, that “ Christ must reign,
until all enemies be put under his feet ;? 1-Cor. 15: 25. It is true, it
must be true, that God has made him to be “ King of kings and Lord
of lords.”

_ Let us suppose, now, that this truth was distinctly in the mind of
John, who wrote the Apocalypse ; and doubtless such was the fact. In
what way, I ask, could he exhibit this truth ‘to the church in the most
interesting and attractive form? Might he not have taught it simply,

and by a single sentence have given assurance of it to the world, and
have left the matter there ?

THE CHURCH 1N EVERY AGE. 479

’

Doubtless it was in his power so to do, \. It was also in the power of
David, when he designed to celebrate the deliverance which he had ex-
perienced from the hand of Saul and from the hand of all his enemies, -
to have said this in so many simple words, and then. to have closed his
lips in silence. But he has not chosen this. method of representing a
truth so deeply interesting to himself and others. He has given us,
therefore, that sublime and. beautiful symbolic representation contained
in the 18th Psalm; a piece of composition for which thanks will be
given to him as long as taste and a power of appreciating the beautiful
shall remain in the world. ;

It was in the power. of Isaiah to announce that great Babylon would
fall, by the hand of Cyrus and the united.hosts of Media and Persia.
He might have simply said this, and refrained from any further declara-
tion. But he has not. done so. He has given us the approach of the
enemy, the onset of battle, the song of victory, and the final prostration
and degradation of the great city with its haughty and hostile monarch.
The 13th and 14th chapters of his book will be read with wonder and
delight, so long as readers of feeling and taste are to be found.

David and other inspired writers might have simply said, as in the
book of Genesis, that “the seed of the. woman should bruise the ser-
pent’s head ;” or that ‘Shiloh. would come, and unto him would the
gathering of the people be; and then have rolled up and sealed the
prophetic scroll.. But these writers have not so done. . Witness the
2nd, the 16th, the 45th, the 110th, and other Psalms, and many glow-
ing descriptions in Isaiah, and the. other prophets, of the like nature.
No one will deny the additional interest which has thus been conferred
on the subject. of their prophecies. No one will wish a word to be de-
tracted, from all the vivid symbols and glowing descriptions which they
shave presented us.

Besides this, we. should particularly note, when David, for example,
brings to view the future king, the Messiah, he invests him with the
costume of oriental kings, i. e. with such as it was at the time when he
wrote. So too the sons of -Korah, in that exquisitely beautiful Psalm,
numbered the forty-fifth. There we find, first of all, the beauty of the
king’s person described ; then his eloquence is brought to view; next
his invincible power and skill in war; his victories on every side ; his
triumphs; and finally, his retinue of ‘captives, the daughters of foreign
kings, and the nuptials which follow. All is in perfect keeping with the
time in which the author lived, and. with the country in which he wrote.

The application of this, now, to the subject before us. is easy and ob-
vious. The theme of the New Testament prophet is the triumph of the
church over its enemies and opposers, the universal extension of the
Redeemer’s kingdom, and its final consummation in glory. What course

y

480 § 28. APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR

should the writer take in order best to accomplish his object? He is
called to the special consideration of this theme, by the circumstances
of the times in which he lived. . Himself an exile under the reign of Ne-
ro; the church bleeding at every pore; harassed by enemies without
and germinating heresies within; apostasies taking place; timid- Chris-
tians wavering, and the faint-hearted ready to despond; how shall these
evils be arrested? How shall the desponding be cheered, the doubting
be confirmed, the bleeding martyrs be made triumphant in death, and
the great and glorious work of converting the world to the Christian
faith move on, amid circumstances like these? The obvious answer is,
by opening upon the world the bright and cheering prospects which
Christianity has before it, and showing all. who become the disciples of
Jesus, that the cause in which they are engaged will surely triumph
over its persecutors and enemies, and the whole earth be yet filled with
the glory of the Lord.

But how shall this be done?) Must he write a treatise, which. will
exhibit a minute history of the church, in all her external relations
down to the end of time? ‘Such a composition would be ill adapted to
the then pressing wants of the. church, and to the times in which he
lived. It must be of vast extent, of course voluminous, unwieldy, and
expensive. It could be purchased by few; it could be thoroughly read,
only by a still smaller number. It would then necessarily fail of ac-
complishing the objects of its author, in such a manner as he both wish-
ed and intended.

Another course, therefore, must be taken. -And this was obviously
the one which he has chosen. ‘The evils then pressing upon the church
must be considered, and the end to which they would: come be fully
brought to view. Embittered Jews, on the one hand, had assailed the
Christian church from its first beginnings; on the other the overwhelm-
ing power of Rome had begun to bear upon it. Christians needed as-
surance that both these enemies would in due time cease to persecute,
and that they would become the victims of divine justice and indignation.
Assurances that such would be the case, were evidently adapted to answer

‘the special purposes which called forth the composition of the Apoca-

lypse. Those in whose time it was written, i: e. all-who gave credit to
the writing, must be enabled to see, that the church could not be extin-
guished by all its enemies, and that it was steadily advancing toward
final and certain triumph.

But what of after ages, when the power of the Jews, and of pagan
Rome should become extinct ?s Would they have any interest in the
Apocalypse? Was it a book which would live until the world should
be no more, and be for the comfort, the confirmation, the a,

and the encouragement of Christians in every age ?

is

THE CHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 481

This brings us to the very gist of the writer’s plan. The then pre-
sent circumstances of the church he had in view; for of this we cannot
doubt. And so did Paul, when, for example, he wrote his first epistle
to the Corinthians, have in view their peculiar circumstances and condi-
tion. It is impossible to explain this epistle on any other ground. But
is there nothing in it, which is of present advantage to us? None will
deny this. All the decisions of Paul in respect to disputed or difficult
questions ; all his precepts, admonitions, threatenings, encouragements,
promises, doctrines—all is just as applicable to us, and to all succeeding
ages, as it was to the Corinthian Christians, after we have simply abated
their peculiar circumstances. So far as our condition and circumstances
and duties are like theirs, just so far what Paul said to them belongs to
us. Manente ratione, manet ipsa lex. And thus may we fairly reason,
in respect to all the books of the New Testament.

Let us examine the bearing of the principle here brought to view,
upon the Apocalypse. In every age the church has had, and will have,
its trials. Jewish or Roman persecution, indeed, will not always rage.
But there are other trials. The carnal mind is always enmity against
God; and always it will, in some shape or other, display that enmity.
There have been, there will be, cold, doubting, hesitating, apostatizing
professors of the Christian religion. Is there no instruction, admoni-
tion, comfort, hope, to be derived from the Apocalypse, in respect to
matters such as these? There is; at least there may be, provided the
book be rightly understood.

In a word, is it rational to suppose that such a writer as John be-
lieved, that all the evils which the church would experience, would
arise from the Jews, the pagan emperors of Rome, and from Gog and
Magog? I trust not. ‘But why then has he not brought other ene-
mies to view” This, I answer, would be to compose a work so exten-
sive that few would copy, purchase, or read it, in case a minute and
circumstantial history of the church, in all its relations and down to the
end of time, should have been undertaken. John, therefore, did what
discretion and sound judgment prompted him to do. He has embodied,
illustrated, and confirmed, a principle in his work, of which the church
may and should avail itself, at all times and in all places. It is the
simple principle, that Ohrist will reign until all enemies are put under
his feet. But in the illustration and confirmation of this, he has select-
ed as examples or specimens, the evils which pressed upon the Chris-
tians to whom his work was particularly addressed. How does the
principle of composition in this case, then, differ from that which David
and other prophets adopt, when they portray the future king Messiah,
in the costume of kings who lived at the time when they wrote? Pre-
sent circumstances were seized upon, in order to convey to their con-

VOL. L 61

”

--

482 § 28. APOCALYPSE DESIGNED FOR

temporaries ideas of future things and persons. Could they have been
well understood, in case they had adopted a principle of composition
different from this?

Has not John taught us, that in the subjugation of the greater and
more violent enemies, we have an assurance that all other enemies will
be subdued? Will he who goes forth, conquering and to conquer, leave
his work undone, or half done? Has he no opponents but Jews and
‘heathen-Rome? Will he have none in future but Gog and Magog?
Surely if he subdues one enemy, because he is mischievous and danger-
ous to the church, he will subdue another of the same temper and char-
acter. He will not save the church from the sword, and leave it to
perish by famine and treachery. He will not subdue and destroy one
enemy, and give up those who have been redeemed by his blood to the
fatal power of another.

Considerations of this nature illustrate and confirm what I mean,
when I say, that the writer of the Apocalypse has established important
and universal principles, respecting the Redeemer’s government and his
protection of the church. What he has repeatedly done, for her pro-
tection and defence, for her extension and confirmation, he will again
do, and continue to do, down to the end of the world. If not, then has
he shed his blood in vain; at least it has been poured out to accomplish
but a narrow and very limited good. Must we adopt a view of our
subject that will lead to such a conclusion ?

‘When we are asked, then, whether apostate Christian Rome is in-
cluded in the design of the Apocalypse ; and whether Mohammedism is
included in the same; and whether all the heresies of every age are
also included in it; our answer may be: Not primarily and imme-
diately ; but still in reality all these, and everything else be it what,
where, or when it may, which is oppased to Christianity, is included by
implication in the Apocalypse. In ather words, a principle is estab-
lished in this book, which embraces all enemies of every kind and name.
Why should God save his church from one enemy, and give it up to
be laid waste and destroyed by another ?

As I may reason from the epistles to the Corinthians, that the prin=
ciples established by Paul there, in reference to the particular state and
difficulties of that church, are available at all times and in all places ;
so in the case before us I may say with the same propriety: It is made
certain by the Apocalypse, that Christ will reign, until he shall have
put ALL enemies under his feet,

With such views as these of the book before us, we may well spare
all the efforts made to convert the Apocalypse into a Syllabus.of his-
tory. We need not look for the Pope, or the French revolution, or the
Turks, or the Chinese, in it, as being distinctly within the vision of the

ae
tay
THE OHURCH IN EVERY AGE. 483

prophetic seer. He saw distinctly the enemies then pressing on the
church. In describing their fall and ruin, he gives a sample of what
must take place in respect to all other enemies and persecutors of the
church, of every form and age. This is enough. All the great moral
and spiritual purposes of the book are answered by this. The church
does not need a minute history of all the external relations in which it
will ever stand, in order to be comforted, and warned, and instructed.
Enough, when we know that it will come off victorious, at last, from
every struggle. Enough that all things will assuredly be put under the
feet of its leader, and that it is marching to ultimate triumph and glory.

All this is accomplished by the book before us; accomplished, we
may say,in a most admirable and impressive manner. As I have
before said, so I say again, that I know of no book in all the Scriptures
which contains matter adapted to higher moral excitement than the
Apocalypse. Is there any one, which even reaches a point so high in
this respect ?

Such is the view that I would take of the writer’s plan and object.
Such the manner in which he has accomplished his design. Can those,
who think that thus interpreted he seems to have said and done too
little, tell us where he could have stopped, had he gone on to predict
individually all the events of interest and importance which were to
befall the church down to the end of time? What a book his must have
been! How very few could be entitled to the blessedness of those who
_ read and understand the Revelation !

If any one still doubts, whether the position is true that has now been
taken in reference to the plan of the Apocalypse, viz., the establish-
ment of a general principle by particular illustration ; it would be easy
to show him, that such is frequently the manner of the Scriptures, in
other cases than those already mentioned. Take for example the text
in Rev. 21:8, “The fearful and unconfiding, and abominable, and
murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers,and idolaters, and all lars,
shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.”
Are these then the only classes of sinners who will be sent to the lake ?
Surely but a small part of them; but then these are named by the
writer as falling more immediately within the scope of his book, and
they are proffered as a sample of all who have the like spirit.

Take another case from the writings of Paul. In the first chapter of
his epistle to the Romans he gives a list of the vices practised among
the Gentiles, on account of which they fell under the just sentence of
the divine law. But are the vices there named all of which the Gen-
tiles were guilty, and do no others bring upon offenders the condemna-
tion of the law? This question is not a difficult one, and there can be
but one answer to it; and this it is not necessary to repeat.

ee
484 § 29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE

So in the case before us. When John holds up to view the Jewish
power, the Roman pagan power, and that of Gog and Magog, as des-
troyed by the all conquering might of the Great Head of the church,
shall we doubt whether his conquests will be extended to any other
enemy, or to all other enemies? What good reason is there to doubt
it? And why should not the same principle of interpretation be adopt-
ed here, as in the cases that I have just recited ?

I am aware how widely different this view of the book is, from that
taken by those who make it a mere compendium of history. But from
them I am constrained to differ. If the Revelation does not bear the
most incontestible marks of reference to events passing when it was
composed, I know of no book in the Bible which does. And while I
believe this, it is impossible to reconcile it with a scheme of interpreta-
tion, which converts the book into an abridgement of history. |

In regard to the third catastrophe of the book, or the invasion of Gog
and Magog, the first inspection of the matter will show us how differ-
ently the writer proceeds, when he comes to the very distant future,
with which no passing events of the then present stood connected.
Here all is brief, rapid, general. A mere glance at the greatest events
is given, after the millennial day. The transitions are. indeed so rapid
here, that the writer has not stopped even to note them by the usual
particles of transition. His manner is brief and abrupt, like that of the
Hebrew prophets in similar cases. He did not intend to gratify a pru-
rient curiosity, which solicitously pries into all things future, and scarce-
ly brings itself calmly to trust in God as ordering all events. He says
enough, however, to elevate the hopes of the Christian, to animate his
efforts, and to guard him against all doubt and despondency. Further
he need not go; his work was not intended to make prophets, but only
to guide and cheer humble inquirers after duty. We cannot well hesi-
tate to say, that to this simple and all-important end it is well adapted.

§ 29. Does the plan of the Apocalypse involve an Anachronism ?

Of course this question is to be understood as having reference to
such a plan of the book as has been exhibited by me, in the preceding
pages, and also in the Commentary which follows. The writer of the
Apocalypse may be free from any well-grounded charge of anachro-
nism, and yet the plan which I have supposed him to pursue, be liable
to a charge of this nature. If such be the case, the probability that I
have mistaken the economy of his work, would be somewhat strong ;
for anachronism, certainly the grosser kind of it, would hardly be com-
patible with what I deem to be the aesthetical character of the Apoca+
lypse.

ate,

INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM ? 485

I do not make this last remark, because I suppose that either unity
of time, or regular chronological sequency of events, is essential to an
Epopee. If this were the case, not a few compositions of this nature
would have but a dubious claim to the rank in which they are now
placed. But still, there is something in itself revolting to an enlighten-
ed taste, in anachronism or parachronism. We are always better satis-
fied with a composition, which exhibits congruities of time and place.
Ignorance of the real sequency of events, which one undertakes to re-
late or to symbolize, detracts from our confidence in the intelligence and
taste of a writer. And where ignorance cannot even be suspected, a
disregard to such sequency abates not a little of the satisfaction that we
otherwise feel, in the perusal of any work.

Supposing now that I have given a correct account of the economy
of the Apocalypse, the question may be fairly asked: Oould a charge
of anachronism upon this book be well supported? Or in other words:
Is it an objection to the plan of the book, as represented by me, that it
' is justly chargeable with anachronism ?

It may not be inapposite to state, in a few words, the reason why I
introduce and discuss this question, at the close of this volume. A
friend, in whose judgment I place much confidence, and with whom I
was conversing on the subject of the Apocalypse, after I had given him
a sketch of my views respecting the economy of the book, and specially
of what I have named the first and second catastrophe, suggested a dif-
ficulty in respect to my plan, which he thought might be raised on the
score of anachronism. That difficulty has its basis in the following par-
ticulars, ‘The fall of Jerusalem was in August, A. D.70. The Jew-
ish war commenced early in the Spring of A. D. 67; and therefore -
lasted about three years and a half. Nero began to persecute Chris-
tians after the burning of Rome, according to the best accounts in the
latter part of Nov. A. D. 64. This emperor was assassinated on the
9th of June, A. D. 68; and after his death the persecution of Chris-
tians immediately ceased. It had lasted about three years and a half.’
Out of thése facts an objection to the plan of interpretation proposed in
my work might be elicited. This plan seems to represent the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem (the first catastrophe), as antecedent to the persecu-
tion by Nero, at least as antecedent to his death; while in fact Nero
began to persecute in A. D. 64, and died two years and two months be-
fore the capture and destruction of Jerusalem.

‘ And besides this, I have represented the woman clothed with the sun
(in chap. xii.), as the symbol of the church or people of God; and her
flight to the wilderness, in order to find an asylum from the persecuting
power of the dragon, as the occasion or ground of Satan’s attack upon
Christians who lived abroad in foreign countries. How could this be

be

$4

486 § 29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE

the cause of Satan’s stirring up persecution against Christians in the
Roman provinces, when that persecution began in A. D. 64, and Chris-
tians did not flee from Judea to Pella until at least the year 67 or 68?

Such are the difficulties which struck the mind of my friend; and, at
first view, they may seem also to others to involve an anachronism in
the plan of the Apocalypse which is represented in my work. But these
seeming difficulties, when suggested, were not new to me. . My own
mind had frequently been occupied with them, until I had become sat-
isfied that they are more apparent than real. I have touched upon
them more than once, both in the introduction to the Apocalypse and in
the commentary. I might perhaps remit the reader to what is there
said, without any further remark; but as it is not unlikely, that the
minds of some of my readers may be embarrassed with the same diffi-
culties which have been stated above, I have thought it expedient to
canvass the subject here, (inasmuch as the printing of this volume re-
mains yet uncompleted), a little more at length than I have elsewhere
done, and thus to incur the hazard of being taxed with repetition, rather
than of having it said that I have sought to shun the difficulty in ques-
tion.

First then, as to the general question of sequency in regard to the
first and second catastrophe.

The Apocalyptist does not represent the second catastrophe as com-
mencing after the first had ended. His description of the’second catas-
trophe does indeed commence after he has concluded his description of
the first. But he does not make, nor have I represented him as mak-
ing, the second catastrophe to spring out of the termination of the first.
On the contrary, chap. xii, as I have endeavoured to show, is regressive.
It comprises events coeval with the first rise of Christianity. I have no
doubt that the writer takes this step, in order to make a palpable dis-
tinction between the first and second catastrophe. The second arises
from the combined malignity of the dragon, the beast from the sea, and
the false prophet.

In a work like that of the Apocalypse, there must be symmetry and
concinnity. John has begun with the Jewish persecuting power, for a
very plain reason. That power persecuted more than thirty years be-
fore the Roman government commenced its war upon Christians. The
oldest enemy, as well as the most obstinate and persevering, must natu-
‘ rally be taken first. When once upon the tapis, the picture must be
finished before the painter could begin another. Nothing could have
been more incongruous, considering the general plan of John, than to
intermingle the first and second catastrophes, in the descriptions which
he has given.

Thus much order and the nature of the case plainly demand. And

a

*4

INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM ? 487

what more has John done, in the case before us? If he had made the
rise of the second catastrophe dependent on the close of the first, then it
would be easy to show that anachronism would be involved. But as
he plainly has not done this, what reason is there that he should not be
at liberty to go on with the description of Jewish persecutors and their
fall, until he has completed all which he might desire to say respecting
them? Nothing is said by the Apocalyptist, which involves the idea
that Nero’s persecution or death was subsequent to the destruction of the
holy city. The writer has indeed connected the first of these with the
disappointment, rage, and malice of Satan, and the bitter enmity of his
coadjutors ; but he has not made the heathen persecution to depend at
all on the fall of Jerusalem, or on the desolation of Judea.

Thus much for the general question of sequency in respect to the
first and second catastrophe. We come now to the more particular
question, in regard to the flight of the woman to the wilderness, as an
alleged reason for Satan’s beginning a persecution in foreign countries.

Nero began his persecution near the close of A. D. 64, Early in
A. D. 67 the Jewish war began. Nero lived a little short of eighteen
months after this last event. On the supposition that John wrote the
Apocalypse a short time before the death of the tyrant, there might
have been some sixteen or more months of war against Judea, when the
book of Revelation was composed. There was opportunity then for the
author of it to know what effects the war had produced, and what it was
likely to produce, upon Christianity in Palestine, and what would be
the probable, or rather the certain, end of the war.

Two circumstances in respect to this position of affairs deserve our
special notice here. The first is, that our Saviour had frequently and
solemnly admonished his disciples respecting such a war, and plainly
and definitely predicted the issue of the contest, Matt. xxiv. At the
same time, he had strictly charged them to flee from the country, when-
ever the Roman invasion should take place. Can there be any reason-
able doubt that Christians in general obeyed this injunction? Even
the prudence of an intelligent man would lead him to flee from the
scene of such an invasion. What rational ground of hope could there
be, that Palestine could resist the mighty power which governed the
world, and crushed: nations numerous and warlike at its pleasure? It
was plainly a case of desperation. Nor was there any well-grounded
hope of truce or peace, between parties so exasperated as the Romans
and Jews were. What else could Christians do, but to flee from the
country? On every ground we may presume that this was speedily
done, after Vespasian had marched his overwhelming army into the re-
gion of Galilee, early in the Spring of A. D. 67.

Thus it is plain, that Satan’s disappointment, described by John, had

488 § 29. DOES THE PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE

an earlier date than the fall of Jerusalem, or the death of Nero. So far
as he was concerned with the persecution of the church abroad, he put
forth his strenuous efforts before the Apocalypse was written, and be-
fore the fall of Nero. .

One other circumstance deserves particular consideration. It was
some time after Nero began to persecute Christians (Nov. A. D. 64),
before the contagion of his example spread among the provinces. It
was an unusual thing for Romans to persecute on account of religion ;
and Nero moreover was generally disliked. Indeed, it can hardly be
supposed to be probable, that the general persecution of Christians in
great earnest began before the Jewish war had commenced. ‘Then, it
seems obvious that it would spread rapidly. The heathen generally,
at that period, confounded, as is well known, Jews and Christians. In
this state of things, a war with Judea would make all Jews, and of
course Christians, to be everywhere suspected, and cause them to be
watched and maligned. Combining the war against Judea with Nero’s
example in “persecuting Christians at Rome, all the provinces, that
wished to court the emperor’s favour, would be led to persecute the
disciples of Christ with severity, under such circumstances. It is to
this aggravated assault on the church of Christ to which the Apocalyp-
tist has adverted, when he mentions Satan as quitting the pursuit of the
woman who had fled to the wilderness, and going away to persecute
the rest of her seed, Rev. 12:17. John regards this aggravation of per-
secuting violence, as occurring after the Jewish war had begun, and
after the flight of Christians to Pella, and Satan’s consequent disap-
pointment. Is he not true to history, and to the nature of the case?

One other circumstance demands notice, in order to free the plan,
which I have supposed the author to pursue, from all imputation and
appearance of anachronism. It is a fact, at least I cannot doubt that
it is a fact, that Nero’s death took place soon after the Apocalypse was
written, and some two years before the fall of Jerusalem. How now, it
may be asked, can it be consistent for this fall to be arranged and
spoken of as happening before the death of Nero ?

The answer to this objection, however, is aot very difficult. In the
first place, the Jewish persecution had raged for a whole generation,
before that of Nero commenced. Of course John must needs take up
this first. When once taken up, the catastrophe that ensued must of
course be completed. It was imposible to make this part of the work
teres atque rotundus, without following such a plan.

Then, in the second place, itshould be noted, (as has already been
said), that the second catastrophe is not made to depend on the first.
It is not regarded or treated as a mere consequent of it. The Neronic
persecution does indeed become aggravated and general, after the defeat

INVOLVE AN ANACHRONISM ? 489

of Satan in Palestine, by the retreat of Christians to Pella. But there
is no anachronism, no vezegor modregor, in this,as we have already
seen above; for this retreat took place some time before’ Nero’s death.

In the third place, it should be called to mind here, that while the
beast then persecuting the church was to fall in three years and six
months, (which as a matter of fact actually took place), yet the great
contest, although it was suspended by his fall, and peace was restored
for a quarter of a century to the church, was not then finally completed.
Hence, after great Babylon is brought toa ruinous state by the out-
pouring of the seven vials, as described in chap. xvi, we have still a
renewal and prolongation of the contest in chap. xviii. xix. Final
ruin of the persecuting power comes in the sequel; bat the delays are
different from those in the first catastrophe. The case was different.
Rome long continued to be the mistress of the world. But the Jewish
national power, broken by the invasion of the Romans, has never since
been renewed, at least for any time worth considering. Their existence as
a separate national community, ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Now we may suppose all this to have been foreseen by the prophetic
eye of John. Hence, after the catastrophe in chap. xi, we hear no
more of the Jewish persecutors. Not so after the catastrophe in re-
spect to this beast, in chap. xvi. ‘The contest did not fully and finally
end with Nero. That particular beast was permitted only to complete
his 1260 days or forty-two months. But since the beast, considered as a
generic symbol, designates the ¢mperial power of Rome, so that power,
which survived the fall of Nero, might be supposed to renew, and did
renew, the persecution. John’s main object, no doubt, was the perse-
cution then raging under Nero. But with this he associated more dis-
tant views of subsequent persecuting emperors. Hence the theme
commences as it were de novo, in chap. xviii. 1 seq.

It is this difference between the circumstances of the two catastrophes,
which occasioned so much diversity in the mode of treating them. It
was this which obliged John to place the death of Nero under the
second catastrophe, although it occurred before the first was completed.
The subsequent persecutions, however, on which he has also cast his
prophetic eye, followed long after the fall of Jerusalem; and the
arrangement which the author has made of the whole connected series
of heathen Romish persecutions, is the only one that he could with
propriety make. There is, therefore, no anachronism—no real VotEoor
mooteoor as viewed by an aesthetical reader—in the plan which the
Apocalypse exhibits.

The main difficulty as to the second catastrophe is, that the reader is
prone to interpret the symbol of the deast in one uniform manner, i. e.
to make it everywhere generic, or to regard it as always denoting the

VOL. I. 62

490 § 29. ANACHRONISM IN THE APOCALYPSE.

imperial power in the aggregate. This latter meaning of the symbol is
in reality less frequent than the specific one, particularly in chap xiii.
and xvii. We should call to mind, that the beast has seven heads ; that.
one of these is wounded and recovers ; that it is the then reigning power,
called the beast, which persecutes, and which claims divine honours,
and the like. Now the symbol of the beast cannot designate, in such
cases, a mere generic and abstract idea, i. e. that of imperial power, but
an individual and concrete and specific power. For the time being,
he is the embodyment of the imperial power; and therefore the word
Snotov may well be applied to him without any scruple.

This variable usage of the word beast, by John, has been noticed by
Ewald, Liicke, and others, of late; but the earlier critics do not seem
to have attended to it. The want of such an attention, and of a right
understanding of John’s real usus loquendi in regard to this word, has
been the fruitful source of many and serious mistakes and errors in the
interpretation of his book. It is time that a matter so plain were better
understood. —

On the whole, Ido not see that John could have made a better
arrangement of his materials than he has made. ‘The charge of anach-
ronism has surely no solid basis, when the objects which he designed
to accomplish are all taken into view, and the poetic nature and dis-
position of the work are well considered. An unpractised or an inex-
pert reader may for a moment be perplexed, perhaps, with some ap-
parent parachronisms ; but surely the intelligent and practised and can-
did exegete will not think of sustaining the charge of chronical offences
against the author of the Apocalypse.

APPENDIX.

EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS.

. [I embrace the opportunity which is afforded me, at the close of this volume,
in consequence of having printed so much in small type, of presenting the reader
some specimens of the oldest Commentary on the Apocalypse that is known to
be extant, viz. that of Victorinus. A particular account of this writer and mar-
tyr under the Diocletian persecution (t 303), may be found in p. 454 seq. above.
It appears that the genuineness of the work has been doubted by some critics of
name; That additions and interpolations have been made, there can be no doubt,
see p. 454. But I am quite persuaded, that the substance of the work is now as
we have it from the hand of Jerome who edited it, and who commends the sound
thought of the writer, although he admits his Latin style to be faulty. It seems
that a friend of Jerome (Anatolius), had urged him to edit this work of Victori-
nus. In the preface to it he states to that friend what he had done in the prose-
cution of his task. Hethus expresses himself: ‘ Inasmuchas you by letters have
entreated me [to edit the work], I was unwilling to put it off. But lest | should
treat your request with too little respect, 1 looked over the books of the older
writers, and what I have found in their commentaries, ]- have associated with
the labours of Victorinus. From lota onward [from chap. x.?], what he regarded
as literal, and whatever from the beginning of the work to the sign of the cross
has been vitiated by unskilful writers, I have corrected. Thence to the end of
the volume, know that things have been added. It is yours now to investigate,
and-to approve of what may please you. Ifit may please the Lord to give us life
and health, my turn of mind, particularly in this volume, will occasion you much
severe labour, Anatoli carissime.’’ So then, it is out of all question to draw metes
and bounds, between what Jerome has added and corrected, and what he has not.
But the style, after all, is in general so diverse from that of Jerome, that 1 cannot
persuade myself that he has gone into extensive changes.

For the rest, I have selected the remarks of the commentator on some of the
more difficult parts of the Apocalypse, and have limited myself to these. I be-
gin with remarks on Apoc. xi.]

Et dabo duobus testibus meis, et praedicabunt amicti cilicio dies mille celx. id
est, triennium et menses sex, hoc enim faciunt menses quadraginta duo,
Est ergo illorum praedicatio triennium, et menses sex, et regnum Anti-
christi alterum tantum. De ore illorum Prophetarum exire ignem contra
adversarios potestatem verbi dici. Ommnes enim plagae quotquot futurae
sunt ab Angelis, in eorum voce mittuntur. Multi putant eum Heliam esse,
aut Helisaeum, aut Moysen: sed utrique mortui sunt: Hieremiae autem
mors non invenitur, quia omnes veteres nostri tradiderunt illum esse Hiere-

492 EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS.

miam. Nam et ipsum verbum quod factum est ad eum, testificatur ei di-
cens, Prius quam figurarem te in ventre, cognovi te: ef prius quam de vulva
procederes, sanctificavi te: ef prophetum in gentibus posm te. In gentibus au-
tem propheta non fuit, et ideo verbum Dei verax necesse habet quod pro-
misit exhiberet ut in gentibus propheta sit. Hos duos candelabra duo et
duas olivas ideo nominavi, ut si in alio legens non intellexisti, hic intelligas.
In Zacharia enim uno ex duodecim prophetis scriptum est, Hi sunt duae
olivae, et duo candelabra, qui in conspectu Dowini terrae stant, id est, sunt
in paradiso. Hos ergo oportet interfici ab Antichristo post multas plagas
saeculo infixas: quem dicit ascendisse bestiam de abysso. De abysso au-
tem eum ascensurum, multa testimonia enim nobis in hoc capitulo contra-
henda sunt. Ait enim Ezechiel, Ecce Assur, cypressus in monte Libano.
Assur deprimens cypressos excelsas, ramosas, id est populos multos in
monte Libano. Regnum regnorum, id est, Romanorum. Formosus in
germinibus, id est, fortis in exercitibus. Aqua, inquit, nutriet eum, id est,
multa millia hominum subjecta erunt illi. Et abyssus hausit illum, id est,
ructavit eum. Nam et Es pené iisdem verbis Joquitur. Fuisse autem
enm jam in regno Romanorum, et fuisse inter Caesares, et Paulus Aposto-
lus contestatur: ait enim ad Thessalonicenses, Qui nunc tenet, teneat, donec
de medio fiat: et tunc apparebit iniquus ille, curus est adventus secundum effica-
ciam Sathane insignis et portentis mendacibus. Et ut scirent illum venturum
inguit, tune erat princeps, adjecit, Arcanum, inquit, malitiae jam oritur. Sed
non sua virtute nec. patris: suscitatur, sed Dei jussu.. Quare ergo Paulus
idem dicit? Idcirco quod non receperunt amorem Dei, mittet eis Deus
spiritum erroris, ut omnes persuadeantur mendacio, qui non sunt persuasi
veritate; et Esaias, ait: Sustinentibus lucem illis tenebrae ortae sunt.

Hos ergo prophetas ab eodem interfici manifestat Apocalypsis, et quarta
die resurgere, ne quis Domino aequalis inveniatur. Sodomam autem et
Afigyptum dicit Hierosolymam. .Dictus populi persecutor id efficiet. Dili-
genter ergo et cum summa solicitudine sequi oportet Propheticam praedi-
cationem, et intelligere quoniam spiritus ex parte praedicit et praeposterat,
et cum praecucurrerit usque ad novissimum, rursus tempora superiora re-
perit, et quoniam quod facturus est semel, aliquoties quasi factum ostendit:
quod nisi intelligas aliquoties quasi. ut factum, aliquoties ut futurum, in
grandi caligine inveniri. Ergo interpretatio sequentium dictorum ea mon-
strabit, ut non ordine lectionis, sed rationis intelligatur. Apertum est tem-
plum Dei, quod est in coelo: Apertio est Domini nostri. . Templum enim
Dei filius ejus est, ipse ait, Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo
ilud, et dicentibus Judaeis Quadraginta et sex annis edificatum est templum
istud, Evangelista inquit, ille dicebat de templo corporis sui, Arca testamenti,
Evangelii praedicatio, et indulgentia delictorum, et omnia bona quae cum
illo advenerint, illa dicit aperuisse.

Mulier autem amicta Sole, et Luna sub pedibus suis, habens coronam
duodecim stellarum, parturiens in doloribus suis, antiqua Ecclesia est pa-
trum et Prophetarum, et sanctorum Apostolorum, quae gemitus et tormenta
habuit desiderii sui usquequo fructum ex plebe sua secundum carnem olim
promissum sibi videret Christum eaipsa gente corpus sumpsisse. Sole au-
tem amicta; speciem resurrectionis significat, et gloriam repromissionis,
Luna verd casws sanctorum corporum, et debitum mortis, quo deficere nun-
quam potest. Nam quemadmodum minuitur vita, sic et augetur: Nec in
totum extincta est spes dormientium, ut quidam putant: sed habent in te-

EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS. 493

nebris lucem sicut Luna. Corona stellarum duodecim chorum patrum sig-
nificat secundum carnem nativitatis: ex quibus erat Christus carnem sump-
turus.. Draco roseus stans et expectans ut cum peperisset filium, devora-
ret eum, diabolus et angelus refuga scilicet, qui omnium hominum interi-
tum per mortem aequalem posse esse opinabatur. Sed qui de semine na-
tus non erat, nihil morti-debebat, propter quod nec devorare eum potuit, id
est, in morte retinere. In tertia enim die resurrexit; denique, et priusquam
pateretur, tentare eum accessit, tanquam hominem. Sed cum inyenisset
non illum-esse quem putabat,\discessit, inquit, ab illo ad tempus. Hune
dicit raptum ad solium Dei, et nos legimus in Actibus Apostolorum quem-
admodum loquens cum discipulis suis, raptus est in coelos, Virga ferrea,
gladius persecutionis... Omnes recessisse de locis suis, id est, quod boni
movebuntur, persecutionem fugientes.

Quatuor Angeli per quatuor angulos terrae, sive quatuor venti trans Eu-
phratem fluvium, gentes sunt quatuor, quia omni genti 4 Deo deputatus est
Angelus, sicut dicit, Statuit‘eos super numeros Angelorum Dei, donee sanc-
torum compleatur numerus, suos non ne terminos, quia in novis-
simo cum Antichristo venient. Quod autem dicit, turba multa ex omni
tribu, credentibus electorum numerum ostendit, qui per sanguinem agni
baptismo purgati, suas stolas fecerunt candidas, servantes gratiam quam ac-
ceperunt. Septimo autem sigillo silentium fit in coelo semihora. Semihora
initium est quietis aeternae, sed partem intellexit, quia interruptio eadem per
ordinem repetit. Nam si esset juge silentium, hic finis narrandi fieret. An-
gelum autem ascendentem ab oriente solum, Helium Prophetam dicit, qui
anticipaturus est tempora Antichristi, ad restituendas Ecclesias et stabilien-
das a magna et intolerabili persecutione. Haec in apertione librorum vete-
ris Testamenti et novi praedicata legimus. Ait enim Dominus per Mala-
chiam: Ecce ego mittam vobis Heliam Thesbitem convertere corda patrum ad
filios, et cor hominis ad proximum suum, id est, ad Cbhristum -per poenitentiam
convertere cerda patrum ad filios, secundum tempus vocationis Judaeos ad
sequentis populi fidem revocare. Ideo ostendit etiam numerum ex Judaeis
crediturum, et ex gentibus magnam multitudinem.

Mitti etiam in coelum orationes' Ecclesiae ab Angelo, et suscipi illas, et
contra iram effindi, et scopari regnum Antichristi: per Angelos sanctos in
Evangelio legimus. Ait enim: Orate ne incidatis in tentationem. Erit enim
angustia magna, qualis non fuit ab origine mundi. Et nisi abbreviasset Do-
minus dies illos, non esset salva omnis caro. Hos ergo Archangelos malos
septem ad percutiendum Antichristum mittit. Nam et ipse ita dixit: Tunc
mitlet filius hominis nuncios suos, et colligent electos ejus de quatuor angulis
venti & finibus ejus usque ad fines ejus ; et ante ait per Prophetam : T'unc erit
pax terrae vestrae, cum surrexerint in ea septem pastores, et octo morsus hominum,
et indagabunt Assur, hoc est, Antichristum, in fossa Nembrot in damnatione di-
aboli. Ecclesiae specie similiter commoti fuerint custodes domus. Ipse
autem in parabola ad Apostolos sic ait, cum venissent ad eum operarii, et
dixissent, Domine, nonne bonum semen seminasti in agro? Unde ergo ibi
lolium? respondit eis, Inimicus homo hoc fecit, cui dixerunt, Vis imus, et
eradicamus illud ? qui ait: Non, sed sinite utraque crescere usque ad mes-
sem, et in temporem messis dicam messoribus, colligere lolium, et facere
manipulos, et cremari igni aeterno : triticam autem colligere in horrea mea.
Hos messores et pastores et operarios hic Apocalypsis ostendit esse Ange-
los.

494° EXTRACTS FROM VICTORINUS.

Tuba autem verbum est potestatis, et licet repetat per phialas, non quasi
bis factum dicit, sed quoniam semel futurum est quod est decretum a Deo
ut fiat, ided bis dicitur. Quicquid igitur in tubis minus dixit, hinc in phia-
lis est. Nec aspiciendus est ordo dictorum, quoniam saepe Spiritus sanc-
tus ubi ad novissimi temporis finem percurrerit, rursus ad eadem tempora
redit, et supplet ea quae minus dixit. Nee requirendus est ordo in Apoca-
lypsi, sed intellectus,

[What follows is very miscellaneous and loose. I omit it, and pass on to more
interesting matter, respecting the beast from the sea and the land, ]

Et vidi de mari bestiam ascendentem similem pardo. Regnum illius
temporis Antichristi cum varietate gentium, et populum commixtum signi-
ficat. Pedes tanquam vasis fortis, et spurcissimae bestiae. Duces, pedes
ejus dixit. Os ejus tanquam ora leonum, inquit, est, id est ad sanguinem
armatum., Os enim ejus, visio illius est, et lingua quae ad nihilum pro-
cessura est nisi ad sanguinem effundendum. Capita septem montes sunt
in quibus mulier sedet, id est, civitas Romana. Et reges septem sunt, quin-
que ceciderunt: unus est: alius nondum venit: et eum venerit, brevi tem-
pore erit. Et bestia quam vidisti, de septem est: et oetava est. Intelligi
oportet tempus quo scriptura Apocalypsis edita est, quoniam tune erat Cae-
sar Domitianus. Ante illum autem fuerat Titus frater illius, et Vespasia-
nus pater, Galba, Otho, et Vitellius.. Hi sunt quinque qui» eeciderunt:
unus extat, sub quo scribitur Apocalypsis, Domitianus scilicet. Alius non-
dum venit, Nervam dixit. Et cum venerit, brevi tempore erit. Biennium
enim non implevit. Ext bestia quam vidisti, inquit, de septem est: quoniam
ante istos reges Nero regnavit. Et octaya est, ait: modo cum illa advene-
rit, computans loco octavo. Et quoniam in illo est consummatio, adjecit, In
interitum vadit. Nam decem reges accepisse regalem potestatem, cum ille
moverit ab oriente, aut mittitur ab urbe Roma cum exercitibus suis. Haec
cornua decem et decem diademata Daniel ostendit, et tria eradicari de
prioribus, hoc est, tres duces primarios ab Antichristo interfici, Caeteros
septem dare illi honorem, et consilium, et potestatem, de quibus
odient meretricem, urbem scilicet, dicit, Et carnes ejus combur
Unum autem de eapitibus occisum in morte, et plaga mortis ejus curata est,
Neronem dicit., Constat enim, dum insequeretur eum equitatus missus 4
senatu, ipsum si alam succidisse, Hune ergo suscitatum Deus mittet re-
gem dignum dignis, et Christum qualem meruerunt Judaei. Et quoniam
aliud nomen allaturus est, aliam etiam vitam instituturus ut sie eum tan-
quam Christum excipiant Judaei. Ait enim Daniel, Desideria mulierum
non cognoscet, cum prius fuerit impurissimus: et nullum Deum patrum
cognoscet. Non enim seducere populum poterit circuncisionis, nisi legis
vendicator. Denique et. sanctos non ad idola colenda revocaturus est, sed
ad cireuncisionem colendam, si quos potuerit seducere. Ita demum faciet
ut Christus ab eis appelletur. De inferno autem illum surgere, et superius
diximus, verbo: Isaiae: Aqua nutriet illum: et abyssus auxit illum. Qui ta-
men licet nomine mutato, et actu immutato veniet, ait spiritus: Numerus
ejus nomen hominis est, et numerus ejus sexcenti sexaginta sex. Cum
attulerit ad literam Graecam, hune numerum explebit. . AI. N. L, T.. CCC;
F. V. Mo L. X. L. O, L, XX. CCC: I WL EVN. LCC, N. V. IL P. OLX.
K. XXOLXX. CC.

=

ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : EXTRACTS. © 495

Aliam bestiam subeuntem de terra magna, falsum prophetam dicit, qui
facturus est signa et portenta mendacia ante illum in conspectu hominum,
Habentem. cornua quasi agni, id est, speciem justi hominis: loquentem
quasi draco, loquetur autem diaboli malitia plenus. Hic enim facturus est
ut ignis de coelo descendat: sed in conspectu hominum. Haec magi per
angelos refugas et hodie faciunt, Faciet etiam ut imago aurea Antichristo
in templo Hierosolymis ponatur, et intret angelus refuga, et inde voces et
sortes reddat. Faciet etiam hic ipse ut accipiant servi et liberi notam in
frontibus aut in manibus dextris numerum nominis ejus, ne quis emat vel
vendat. Aspernationem autem et exacerbationem Daniel anté praedixerat.

[! add the passage respecting the Millennium, which will show, indeed, -that
Victorinus (a full Millenarian like Papias and Nepos) has been transformed. But
what a strange transformation, One isready to exclaim: Could Jerome, then,
write such stuff as this, and expect any one to respect his opinion? I would hope
that, after all, this does not belong to him.]

Omnes animae gentium congregabuntur ad judicium. Nam mille anno-
rum regnum non arbitror esse terminum. Aut si ita sentiendum est, com-
pletus annis mille regnare desinunt. Sed ut mei sensus capacitas sentit
proferri, quoniam denarius numerus decalogum significat, centenarius vir-
ginitatis coronam ostendit. Qui enim virginitatis integrum servaverit pro-
positum, et decalogi fideliter praecepta impleverit, et contra impuros mores
vel impuras cogitationes intra cordis cubiculum vigilaverit, ne dominentur
ei: iste veré sacerdos est Christi, et millenarium numerum perficiens, inte-
gre creditur regnare cum Christo, et. apud eum recte ligatus est diabolus.
Qui vitiis et dogmatibus haereticorum irretitus est, in eo solutus est diabo-
lus. Sed quia completis mille annis dicit eum solvi, completo perfectorum
sanctorum numero, in quibus corpore et corde virginitas regnat, adveniente
abominandi adventu ? multi ab eo, amore terrenorum seducti supplantabun-
tur, et simul cum eo ingredientur stagnum, et post modicum tellus reddet
sanctorum qui dudum quieverant corpora, immortale cum aeterno rege
suscipientes regnum: quos non solum corpore virgineo, sed et lingua et
cogitatione exultaturos cum agno demonstrat.

SPECIMEN OF THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH,

£

{A fall account of this interesting relic of antiquity, the reader will find above,
p. 40 seq. The summary of contents there given, will impart a just view of the
general ‘tenor of the book. I have thought it would be grateful to those of my
readers who have had no opportunity to peruse the work as published by Dr.
Laurence, to see a specimen of it in the writer’s own manner. I shall give that
part of the “Ogaovs, which commences with the seventh chapter of the work, but
in the Vision proper would be reckoned the second ; see p. 42 seq. above. This
gives an account of his rapture through the seven heavens, into the presence of

God.]

Cua. VIL. (1) The vision, then, which Isaiah saw, he told to Hezekiah,
to Josheb his son, to Micah, and to the other prophets, (2) It happened,

~\

496°. * ASCENSION OF ISAIAH : EXTRACTS.

he said, when I prophesied, according to what you have heard, that I be-
held a glorious-angel, whose glory was not like that of the angels Thad
been accustomed to hehold, but be possessed a glory and office so great,
that Iam unable to express it. (3) I saw hin when he seized me by my
hand, and I said,“ Who art thou? What is thy name? And whither
wilt thou cause me to ascend?” For the power of conversing wi

was granted to me. (4) He replied: “ When I have taken thee up, and
shown thee the vision, which I have been sent to show thee, thou shalt
instantly understand who Iam; but my name thou shalt not know ;° (5)
(For it is necessary that thou shouldest return into thy mortal body), but
thou shalt perceive whether I shall cause thee to ascend, because for this
purpose have I been sent to thee.” (6) Then I rejoiced to hear him speak
mildly to me. (7) He said, “Dost thou, rejoice, because I speak mildly to
thee?” He added, “Him who magnified me, shalt thou behold, as mildly
and tranquilly he converses with thee. (8) And the Father of him, who
magnifies me, shalt thou behold; for from the seventh heaven was I sent
in all these things to illuminate thee.” toh, SE

(9) We then ascended into the firmament, I and he, where I beheld
Samael and bis powers. ‘Great slaughter was perpetrated by him, and
diabolical deeds, while each contended one against another. (10) For as it
is above, so is it below, because a similitude of that which takes place in
the firmament, exists also here on earth. (11) I said to the angel, “ What
is this contention >” (12): He answered: “ Thus has it been from the foun-
dation ofthe world, and this slaughter will ‘continue, until he, whom thou
shalt behold, shall come and put an end to it.” (18) Afterwards he caused
me to ascend above the firmament into heaven; (14) Where I beheld a
throne in the midst, and angels both upon the right hand and upon the left.
(15) Nor were any like the angels, standing on the right hand ; for those
standing on the right hand possessed a very great degree of splendor,
And they all glorified with one voice, (the throne being in the midst), glori-
fying the same object. After them likewise those upon the left hand, but
their voice was not as the voice of those upon the right hand, nor
splendor as the splendor of the others. (16) Then I mquired of the ang
who was conducting me, saying: “’To whom is this glorifying addressed 2?”
(17) He replied: “To the Glory of the seventh heaven, to him who in the
holy world causes blindness, and to his Beloved, from whom I have been
sent to thee, jer is it addressed.”

(18) Again ¢me up into the second heaven, the height of which
was me in 9 9m the earth to heaven and the firmament. (19) The
first heaven was distinguished by a right side and _a left, by a throne in the
midst, and by the splendor of angels. These things also were in the
second heaven; but he who sat upon the throne in the second heaven pos-
sessed a glory greater than all. (20) Abundant indeed was the glory of
the second heaven ; but the splendor of the angels there resembled not that
of those, who were in the first heaven. (21) Then I fell on my face to
worship who sat upon the throne; but the angel, my conductor, did
not suffer me, hos “Worship not, neither the angel, nor the throne of

of
thee, before I tell thee to worship in the seventh heaven. (22) For above

all the heavens and their angels thy throne is placed, thy cloathing, and
thy crown, which thou shalt thyself behold. (23) And dM Hi aie eas

° oe
him, who is sixth heaven, from whence I have been sent to conduct

ASCENSION OF ISAIAH: EXTRACTS. 497

joy; for those, who love the Most High and his Beloved, shall, at the end
of their lives, by the angel of the Holy Spirit, ascend thither.”

(24) Then he tock me up into the third heaven, where in like manner J
beheld these, whe were upon the right hand and upon the left, and where
also a throne was in the midst, and one sitting upon it, but no record of
this world was there commemorated. (25) And I said to the angel, who
was with me: “ Because the splendor before me will be changing, while I
ascend through the different heavens, because there is here no knowledge
of the world, vain would prove the attempt to commemorate it.” (26) He
answered me, saying: “ No commemoration takes place on account of its
irksomeness. Nothing however is concealed which is here transacted.”
(27) I then wished to be informed how, if not commemorated, it became
known. He answered me saying: “ When inte the seventh heaven, from
whence I was sent, I have caused thee te ascend, into that, which is above
these, immediately shalt thou understand, that there is nothing concealed
from the thrones, and those, who dwell in the heavens, nor from the an-
gels; and that the splendor, with which they shine, and the glory of him,
who sits upon the throne, is greater, as well as the glory of the angels upon
the right and upon the left hand more excellent, than that of the heaven,
which is under them.”

(28) Again he took me up into the fourth heaven, the height of which
from the third was greater than from the earth to the firmament. (29)
There again I saw angels, upon the right hand and upon the left, and one
sitting upon a throne in the midst, and there likewise they glorified. (30)
There too the splendor and glory of the angels on the right hand exceeded
that of those on the left. (31) Again also the glory of him, who was sitting
on the throne, exceeded that of the angels who were upon the right hand,
as their glory also exceeded that of those, who were below them. |

(32) Then he took me up into the fifth heaven. (383) Where again I per-
ceived that the angels upon the right and the left side, as well as he, who
sat upon the throne, possessed a greater glory than those of the fourth
heaven. (34) The glory also of those, who were upon the right side, sur-
passed that of those, who were upon the left, from a triple to a fourfold
proportion. (35) While the glory of him, who was upon the throne, ex-
ceeded that of the angels, who were upon the right side; (36) As their
glory possessed a greater degree of splendor, than that of the angels in the
fourth heaven. (87) Then I glorified him, whom.no one names, the potent
Being, who dwells in the heavens, whose name has been revealed to
any mortal, him who thus transmits glory from | | to hee who
augments the splendor of the angels, and renders still more brilliant that of
him, who sits upon the throne.

Cuap. VIIL (1) Moreover he took me up into the ether of the sixth
heaven, where, immediately as I ascended, I saw an effulgence, which I
had not perceived in the fifth heaven. (2) The angels existed. in great
glory. (8) A holy splendor and a throne was also there. (4) Then I said
to the angel, who was conducting me, “ What is this, which I behold, my
Lord?” (5) He replied: “Iam not thy Lord, but thy associate.” (6) I
further inquired of him, saying, “Are there then no associates of angels?”
(7) He said: “Yes; of ‘the sixth heaven and above, in which from this
time there is neither a left Side, nor a throne placed in the midst; but it is
connected with the potency of the seventh heaven, where dwells he, who

VOL I. 63

498 - ASCENSION OF ISAIAH: EXTRACTS.

is never named, and his Elect, whose name is unrevealed, nor are all the
heavens capable of discovering it. (8) For he alone it is, whose voice all
the heavens and the thron y. I therefore have received power. and
been sent to bring thee up here, that thou mightest behold this splendor ;
(9) That thou mightest see the Lord of all these heavens and these u
(10) Who shal] nevertheless be changed, until he assume your fo:
your similitude. (11) Wherefore I say unto thee, Isaiah ; because into
mortal body that which is human must return, that, which has neither p
ceived, nor ascended, nor understood the things which thou hast under-
stood; (12) That, what thou shalt be, thou shalt behold, for thou shalt
participate in the lot of the Lord; by the portion of a tree shalt thou come
here, and thence is derived the potency of the sixth heaven and of the
ether. (13) Then I greatly magnified my Lord, because by the same kind
of death which shall happen to him, I shall be transported to heaven.
(14) He continued: “Hear further this from thy fellow servant. When
from an alien body by the angel of the Spirit thou hast ascended hither,
then shalt thou assume the cloathing, which thou shalt behold; and other
numbered, laid up, cloathings shalt thou see. (15) Then also shalt thou be
equal to the angels of the seventh heaven.” e

(16) He now took me up into the sixth heaven, where there was neither
a left side, nor a throne in the midst, but all were alike in their appearance,
and their splendor was equal. (17) And permission being given me, I
glorified, I with them and that angel, and our glorifying was like theirs.
(18) There all invoked the first, the Father, and his Beloved the Christ,
and the Holy Spirit, all with united voice. (19) But their voice was not
like that of the angels, ich were in the five heavens. (20) Nor alike was
their utterance, but a different voice, as well as a more copious effusion of
light was there. (21) Then, while I continued in the sixth heaven, I re-
garded as darkness the brilliancy, which I had seen in the five heavens;
(22) Rejoicing and glorifying him, who had thus graciously bestowed light
on those, who wait in expectation of his promise. (23) And I supplicated
the angel who was conducting me, that from this time forward I mig
return into a world of mortality. (24) Wherefore be assured, O Hez
Josheb my son, and Micah, that great darkness is here, darkness in
great. (25) Now the angel, who was conducting me, knew what I tho
and he said: “If in thi
rejoice in the sevel

ugh

light thou hast rejoiced, how much more wilt eae
heaven, from whence I have been sent to thee, when
thou shalt behold the light, where the Lord is, and his Beloved, who will
hereafter be called in the world the Son. (26) For he who is to exist in a
corruptible world has not yet been revealed ; nor the cloathing, the thrones,
and the crowns, which are reserved for the saints, for those, who shall
believe in that Lord, in him, who will descend in your form; since there

the light is great and Wonderful. (27) With respect however to thy return-
ing into the y no more, understand that the days are not accomplished
for thy co here.” (28) Hearing this, I became sorrowful, but he said,
“ Grieve no poe

raised re into the ether of the seventh heaven.

ar i exclaiming : “Whither would he ascend who
dwells among ‘ igers®” I feared and trembled. (2) It spoke of me.
And while I trem behold, from the same place another voice was
uttered, whi said, “Let holy Isaiah be permitted to ascend hither, for

#

bd

BOOK OF ENOCH: SPECIMENS. : 499

here is his cloathing.” (8) Then I inquired of the angel who was with
me, and said: “ Who is he that prohibited me? and who he that favoured
my ascent?” (4) The angel answered: “He who prohibited thee is he,
who dwells above the splendor of the sixth heaven. (5) And he who turn-
ed thee back again is thy Lord God, the Lord Christ, who will be called in
the world, Jesus; but his name it is impossible to understand, until he has
ascended from mortality.”

(6) He then took me up into the seventh heaven, where T beheld a
miraculous light and angels innumerable. (6) There also I saw all the
saints from Adam: (8) Holy Abel, and every other saint. (9) There too
I beheld Enoch, and all coeval with him, who were without the cloathing
of the flesh: I viewed them in their heavenly cloathing, resembling the
angels, who were standing there in great splendor. (10) Nevertheless they
Sat not upon their thrones, nor were splendid crowns upon their heads.
(11) Then I inquired of the angel, who was with me, how it happened, that
they had assumed their cloathings but not their thrones and crowns. (12)
He said: “Crowns and thrones of glory they have not yet received, but
they shall understand and know what their thrones, and what their crowns
shall be, after the beloved has descended in the form, in which thou shalt
see him descend. (13) For the Lord shall descend into the world in the
latter days, and after his descent shall be called Christ. He shall take your
form, be reputed flesh, and shall be man. (14) Then shall the God of the
world be revealed by his Son, Yet will they lay their hands upon him,
and suspend him on a tree, not. knowing who he is. (15) In like manner
also shall his descent, as thou wilt perceive, be concealed from the heavens,
through which he shall pass altogether unknown. (16) But after he has
escaped from the angel of death, on the third day he shall rise again, and
continue in the world five hundred and forty-five days. (17) And many
also of the saints shall ascend with him, whose spirits shall not receive
their cloathing, until the Lord Christ shall ascend himself, and with him
shall they ascend. (18} Then therefore shall they assume their cloathing,
and thrones, and crowns, when he shall have ascended into the seventh

”

SPECIMENS OF THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

{A full account of this production may be found above, p. 50 seq. 1 select
those parts which exhibit in a peculiar manner the Christology of the author ; be-

ginning with chap. xlv.] “

Cuar. XLV. (1) Parable the second, respecting those who deny the name
of the habitation of the holy ones, and of the Lord of spirits. (2) Heaven
they shall not ascend, nor shall they come on the earth. This shall be the
portion of sinners, who deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and who are
thus reserved for the day of punishment and of affliction. (3) In that day
shall the Elect one sit upon a throne of glory; and shall choose their con-
ditions and countless habitations, (while their spirits within them shall be

€

‘ ¥ eg, PY
» ,
a * ‘ r
500 yh BOOK OF ENOCH: SPECIMENS. __

, w
diénediened, when they behold my Elect one;) shall choose them for a
who have fled for protection to my holy and glorious name. D
day I will cause my Elect ball dwell in pe ott ale
the face of heaven; will bless it, and illuminate it ever. (5 ye
change the face of ‘the earth; will bless it; and cause those who
elected to dwell upon it. But those who have committed sin and |
shall not inhabit it; for I have marked their proceedings. My righte
ones will I satisfy with peace, placing them before me; but the condemna
tion of sinners shall draw near, that IT may destroy ite from the face of _
the earth. + FS
_ Cuar. XLVI. (1) There I beheld the Ancient of days, whose head was
like white wool, and with him another, whose countenance resembled that
of man. en was full of grace, like"that of one of the holy
angels. Then I inquired of one of the angels, who went with me, and who
showed me every secret thing, concerning this Son of man; who He was;
whence He was; and why He accompanied the Ancient of days. (2) He
answered and said to me: This is the Son of man, to whom righteousness
belongs; with whom ae acca has dwelt; and who will reveal all the
treasures of that which is, concealed; for the Lord of spirits has chosen
Him; and his portion has surpassed all before the Lord of spirits in ever-
wedne uprightness. (3) This Son of man, whom thou beholdest, shall raise
up kings and the nnighty from their couches, and the powerful from their
thrones; shall loosen the bridles of the powerful, and break in pieces the
teeth of sinners. (4) He shall hurl kings from their thrones and their do-
minions; because they 1 not exalt and praise Him, nor humble them-
selves before Hum, by whom their kingdoms were granted to them. The
countenance likewise of the mighty shall He cast down, filling them with
confusion. Darkness shall be their habitation, and worms shall be their
bed; nor from that their bed shall they hope to be again raised, because
they exalted not the name of the Lord of spirits. (5) They shall condemn
the stars of heaven, shall lift up their hands against the Most High, shall
tread’ upon and inhabit the earth, exhibiting all their works of iniquity,
even their works of iniquity. Their strength shall be in their riches, and
their faith in the gods whom they have formed with their own
They shall deny the name of the Lord of spirits, and shall expel Him. from
the temples, i in which they assemble ; (6) And with Him the faithful, who
suffer in the name of the Lord of spirits.

Cuar. XLVII. (1) In that day the prayer of the holy and the righteous,
and the blood of the righteous, shall ascend from the earth into the pres-
ence of the Lord of spirits. (2) In th at day shall the holy ones assemble,
who dwell above the heavens, and mith united voice petition, supplicate,
praise, laud, and bless the name of the Lord of spirits, on account of the
blood of the righteous which has been shed; that the prayer of the right-
eous may not be intermitted before the Lord of spirits; that for them He
would e ej and that his patience may not endure for ever.
(3) At that ti eld the Ancient of days, while He sat upon the throne
of his glory, ' the living was opened in his presence, and
while all the po h were above the heavens stood around and be-
fore Him. (: el hearts of the saints full of j joy, because the
consummi of 1 rig at ness was arrived, the supplication of the saints
heard, an e blood of the righteous appreciated by the Lord of spirits.

a;

+

> -

_ BOOK OF ENOCH: SPECIMENS. Bs 501 |
» ; .

Cuar. XLVIII. (1) In that place I beheld a fountain of righteousness,
which never failed, encircled by many springs of wisdom. Of these all the
thi ank, and were filled with wisdom, having their habitation with
ous, the elect, and the holy. (2) In that hour was this Son of man
before the Lord of spirits, and his name in the presence of the
of days. (3) Before the sun and the signs were created, before the.
of heaven were formed, his name was invoked in the presence of the
d of Spirits. A support shall He. be for the righteous x holy to
lean upon, without falling; and he shall be the light of nations. (4) He
shall be the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All, who dwell on
earth, shall fall down and worship before me shall bless and glorify Him,
and sing praises to the name of the Lord 6f spirits. (5) Therefore the
Elect and the Concealed one existed in His presence, before the world was
created, and for ever. (6) In His presence he existed, and has revealed to
the saints and to the righteous the wisdom of the Lord of spirits; for he
has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and reject-
ed this world of iniquity, and have detested all its works and ways, in the
name of the Lord of spirits. (7) For in His name shall they be preserved ;
and His will shall be their life. In those days shall the kings of the earth
and the mighty men, who have gained the world by their achievements, be-
come humble in countenance. (8) For in the day of their anxiety and
trouble their souls shall not be saved; and they shall be in subjection to
those whom I have chosen. (9) I will cast them like hay into the fire, and
like lead into the water. Thus shall they burn in the presence of the
righteous, and sink in the presence of the holy; nor shall a tenth part of
them be found. (10) But in the day of their trouble, the world shall obtain
tranquillity. (11) In His presence shall they fall, and not be raised up
again; nor shall there be any one to take them out of His hands, and to
lift them up: for they have denied the Lord of spirits, and His Messiah. -
The name of the Lord of spirits shall be blessed.

Cuapv. XLVIIL (1) Wisdom is poured forth like water, and glory fails
not before Him for ever and ever; for potent is He in all the secrets of
righteousness. (2) But iniquity passes away like a shadow, and possesses
not a fixed station: for the Elect one stands before the Lord of spirits; and
His glory is for ever and ever; and His power from generation to genera-
tion. (3) With Him dwells the spirit of intellectual wisdom, the spirit of
instruction and of power, and the spirit of those who sleep in righteous-
ness; He shall judge secret things. (4) Nor shall any be able to utter a
single word before Him; for the Elect one is in the presence of the Lord
of spirits, according to his own pleasure. e

Cuap. XLIX. (1) In those days the saints and the chosen shall undergo
a change. The light of day shall rest upon them; and the splendor aaa
glory of the saints shall be changed. (2) In the day of trouble evil shall be
heaped up upon sinners; but the righteous shall triumph in the name of
the Lord of spirits. (3) Others shall be made to see, that they must repent,
and forsake the works of their hands; and that glory awaits them not in
the presence of the Lord of spir its ; yet that by his name they may be saved.
The Lord.of spirits will have Basdidh on them; for great is his mercy ;
and righteousness is in his judgment, and in the presence of his glory; nor
in his judgment shall iniquity stand. He who repents not before Him shall
perish. (4) Henceforward I will not have mercy on them, saith the Lord
of spirits. x

i

F.

o ‘ ~ *
f ine
/ | 5 ~ *
; .
502 « BOOK. OF ENOCH: SPECIMENS. a
_ Cuar \) I hall th “deliv up frora her womb,
and hell d ) that whic nd destructi
_ shall resto1 teous and h
from am ached. (3) And

ise

shall be bright

s
Crap. LXL (1 1) Thus the: Lord commanded the kings, the princes, the

ale every secret of

"pfoéeed from na for the Lord of spirits

the mountains shall skip

in those

om shall

ir rp obese ol
one be exalted.
elect pos-

shall become eaven. (5)

ith joy; for in those shall the Ele

The s rejoice ; the righteous shall inhabit it, an
; ie

all the righ

| aS gift Ai ind lorified him. (4) In those
__ like rams, and the hills shall leap like y i sheep satiated with milk ;.and
ge
:

exalted, and ie who. dwe earth, saying: Open your eyes, and lift up
your oe if you are capable of comprehending the ae one. (2) The
Lord of spirits sat upon the throne his glory. (3) And e spirit of
righteousness was poured out over him. (4) The word of his th shall
destroy all the sinners and e ungodly, who shall perish at his pres-
ence. (5) In that day shall al e kings, the princes, the exalted, and those
who prseeage earth, stand up, ‘potold. and perceive, that He is sitting on
the throne of his glory that before him the saints shall be judged in right-
eousness ; (6) And vat nothing, which shall be spoken before Him, shall
be spoken in vain, (7) ‘Trouble shall come upon them, as upon a woman
in travail, whose labour i is severe, when her child comes to the mouth of
the womb, and she finds it difficult to bring forth. (8) One portion of them
shall look upon another. They shall be astonished, and shall humble their
countenance ; (9) And trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold this
Son of woman sitting upon the throne of his glory. (10) Then shall the
kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify Him w as do-
minion over all things, Him who was concealed; for from the beginning
the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the
presence of his power, and revealed to the elect. (11) He shall sow the
congregation of nage and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand
before Him in that day. (12) All the kings, the princes, the exalted, and
those who rule over the earth, shall fall down on their faces before of
and shall worship Him. (13) "They shall fix their hopes on this Son of

¥ man, shall pray to Him, and petition Him for mercy. (14 en shall the

Lord of spirits hasten to expel them from his presence. faces shall
be full of confusion, and their faces shall darkness cover. The angels shall
take them to punishment, that vengeance may be inflicted on those who
have op ee s children and his elect. And they shall become an exam-
ple to 4 ne saints and to his elect. Through them shall these be made joy-
ful; for the anger of the Lord of spirits shall rest upon tam (3) Then the
wort of the Lord of spirits shall be drunk with their blood; but the
saints and elect shall be safe in _that day ; nor the face of the sinners and
the ungodly shall they eforwards behold. (16) The Lord of spirits
shall remain over them: (17) And with this Son of man shall they dwell,
eat, lie down, and rise up, for ever and ever. (18) The saints and the elect
have arisen from the earth, hier eft off to depress | countenances, and
have been elothed with the ies of life. That garment of life is with
*

a*

t ae nor

aimi ie s
fi pe forbear t to ansentit pethon of the ; author’ astronomical revelations ; A
for they must at least amuse the reader much, if they not instruct him. Thas-

thoy met] = ah a eo om
0

Cuar. LXXI. ( (1) The book of the revolutions of the luminaries of hea- _
ven, according to their respective mae ei" ‘respective ‘over their re-

spective periods, their respective mes, the places wher ey commence
their progress, and their respective months, which Urie el, the " el who
was with | explained to nie; he who conduegaa ra ty ac-
count of them, according to every year of the world for ever, unti a 1
work shall be effected, which will be eternal.

(2) This is the first law of the luminaries. The sun and the %. ae
at the gates of heaven, el are on the east, and on the west of it at the
western gates of heaven. (3) I beheld the gates whence the sun goes forth ;
and the ae where the ‘i a ants (4) In which gates also the moon rises
and sets; and J beheld the conductors of Ce among those who pre-
cede them’ six gates were at the rising, and six at the setting of the sun.
(5) All these respectively, one after another, are on a level ; and numerous
windows are on the right and on the left sides of those gates. ¥

(6) First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun ; the
orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole oi being replete wit
splendid and flaming fire. (7) Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows.
(8) The sun sets in heaven, and, returning by the north, to proceed towards
the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of
heaven. (9) In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by a great
gate. (10) It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at
the rising of the sun, (11) And in the fourth gate, through which the sun
with the moon proceeds, 1 in the first part of it, there are twelve open win-
dows; from which issues out a flame, when they are opened at their pro-
per ioriods. (12) When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this
fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a
level with it descends. (13) During that gericd the day is lengthened from
the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then
the day is longer by two parts than the night. (14) The day is precisely
ten parts, and jbo night is eight.

(15) The sun goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns m

to the fifth gate Pauring thirty days; after which it pr roceeds from, and sets
in, the fifth gate. (16) Then the day becomes lengthened by a second por-
tion, so that it is eleven parts; while the night becomes shortened, and is
only seven parts. (17) The sun now returns to ae east, entering into the
sixth gate, and rising and setting - in the sixth gate thirty-one days, on ac-
count of its signs. (18) At that period the day is longer than the night, be-
ing twice as long as the night; and eo twelve parts ; (19) But the
night is shortened, and becomes six parts. Then the sun rises up, that the
day may be shortened, and the night lengthene (20) And the sun returns
towards the east, entering into the sixth gate, where it rises and sets for
thirty days. (21) When that period is cepted, the day becomes short-
ened precisely one part so that it is eleven parts, while the night is seven
parts, (22) Then the sun goes from the west, aoe that sixth gate, and

é,

P

*, o* # &

ae ~ BOOK ‘OF ENOCH: SPECIMENS.

ing . 7 gah gio ate fn iy
gate of t (23) Att

ile the night is eight parts.
sha th sit sets “in the fifth gate of
and : the fourt! for -one days, on account of its
ing in the west. (25) t the day is made ers an he
t; and, being equal with it, the 1 omes: nine | s, and a
nine parts. (26) Then the s 4 thatygate ged
t; and a to the east proceeds by the th B tor thirty days,
ing in the west at the third gate. (27) At that prod ht is length-
“4 ened fi fied ae thirty donne and the day is iled from
the day ring thirty days; the night being ten parts precisely, and the day.
eight parts. (28) The sun now goes from the third gate, as it sets in the
hi 2 gate in the west; but returning to the east, it vrollieds by the second
the east for thirty days. (29) In like maminer also it sets in the se-
ro Bie the west of heaven. (30) At that period the night is eleven
the day seven parts. (31) Then the sun goes at ‘that time from .
gs rand gate, as it sets in the second gate in the west; but returns to the
east, proceeding by the first gate, for thirty-one days. (32 ) And sets in the
west in the first gate. (33) At that period the night is lengthened as much
again as the day. (34) It is twelve parts precisely, while the day is six
parts. (35) The sun has thus completed its beginnings, and a second time
goes round from these beginnings.

Ss, - setting again
period the day be-_

| [The writer goes on at much greater length with the sun, and then brings into
a view the moon and stars, in respect to which his revelations are equally wonder-

ful. It is one of the most curious mixtures of fancy and conceit on the one hand,
and of half scientific and accurate observation of the course of the heavenly bod-
ies on the other, which can anywhere be found.]

: po i *

i ™e
J : END OF VOL. I.
i
‘
7 School of Theology *.

at Claremont
? ;

he
PON ae *

a Fe * &

tii ted // “i E

= aS a sag lS. VIT LUG AVULALYVDSe, .

BS . Stuart, Moses, 1780-1852. |
2825 A commentary on the Apocalypse. New-York,
S7 Van Nostrand & Terrett, = Cce1845]

Vi/ ev. 25cm.

1. Bible. N.T. Revelation--Commentaries. —

CCSC/mmb

ALOBYI VI J
@ 410349

v-|

She,
Ttens Caos be
She Seth ay ay
Rha ty

ye